Jump to content

"Layers and layers of fact checkers."


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Highmark said:

Nor are News "organizations."   The Citizen's decision did not really say a corporation or Union is an individual it just made clear you cannot arbitrability make rules against one group and not others.  Its just as much a 14th decision in my book as 1st.   The bold below is critical in understanding the decision.

Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, and wrote a concurring opinion which Justice Alito joined in full and Justice Thomas joined in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens' dissent, specifically with regard to the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia wrote that Stevens's dissent was "in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment... It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form." He further considered the dissent's exploration of the Framers' views about the "role of corporations in society" to be misleading, and even if valid, irrelevant to the text. Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in "terms of speech, not speakers" and that "Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker."[34] Scalia argued that the Free Press clause was originally intended to protect the distribution of written materials and did not only apply to the media specifically. This understanding supported the majority's contention that the Constitution does not allow the Court to separate corporations into media and non-media categories.[29]

Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in all but the upholding of the disclosure provisions. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down the reporting requirements of BCRA §201 and §311 as well, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-specific basis. Thomas's primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation, citing instances of retaliation against contributors to both sides of a then-recent California voter initiative. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials. Thomas did not consider "as-applied challenges" to be sufficient to protect against the threat of retaliation.[35]

  

Yeah yeah yeah, it gave organizations the same rights as individuals, it didn't actually deem them individuals. The whole thing is tenuous, including equating money and speech. It was an activist decision from the so-called originalists.

19 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

So I am not a corporation?I  odd not to see it that way unless of course you are attempting to push some other agenda and think any small biz owner would be dumb enough to fall your that line of shit 

You have a corporation, by definition it is a separate entity from you as a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
11 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Yeah yeah yeah, it gave organizations the same rights as individuals, it didn't actually deem them individuals. The whole thing is tenuous, including equating money and speech. It was an activist decision from the so-called originalists.

You have a corporation, by definition it is a separate entity from you as a person.

Money is the Press so how shouldn't money be speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Yeah yeah yeah, it gave organizations the same rights as individuals, it didn't actually deem them individuals. The whole thing is tenuous, including equating money and speech. It was an activist decision from the so-called originalists.

You have a corporation, by definition it is a separate entity from you as a person.

It is how I file taxes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Highmark said:

Money is the Press so how shouldn't money be speech?

Pass me whatever you're smoking man.

8 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

It is how I file taxes 

An S corporation doesn't pay income tax, that's basically the whole point in an S corp, the shareholders pay tax on the income instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
10 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Pass me whatever you're smoking man.

An S corporation doesn't pay income tax, that's basically the whole point in an S corp, the shareholders pay tax on the income instead.

For profit corporations with agenda's own the press/media now.   They can spend limitless amounts of money pushing an agenda.   Explain where I'm wrong here?   Why shouldn't your or my company be able to do the same?

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Pass me whatever you're smoking man.

An S corporation doesn't pay income tax, that's basically the whole point in an S corp, the shareholders pay tax on the income instead.

yup, 1120S and 1065's are just pass through's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...