
Study Finds 'Corporate Takeover' of First Amendment - hackuser
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/first-amendment-patron-saint-of-protesters-is-embraced-by-corporations.html
======
belovedeagle
Yes, the universities which are leading the charge on suppressing the speech
of students are widely known as bastions of conservative thought. /s

The article is idiotic. Yes, groups of people (corporations, in the literal
sense) have begun to be recognized as having almost as much right to free
speech as the individual constituents. No, that might not be perfectly ideal.
Yes, at the same time (who can speak as to the causal relationship) the
conservative right has embraced the first amendment somewhat more than in the
past.

But the real problem is not that the right has embraced 1A, it's that the so-
called "liberal" left has abandoned it. The left is no longer liberal in the
traditional sense; in fact, these days, it's the left which seeks to impose
certain values on society by any means necessary, including the suppression of
speech. "Students, prisoners, pacifists and whistle-blowers"\---at least two
of these, students and whistle-blowers, have been primarily attacked by the
leftist university administrations and the current American executive, also on
the left. I can't say as to the prisoners and pacifists, except insofar as the
prisoners and pacifists _are_ the whistle-blowers, in which case it was again
the left which has trampled their first amendment rights.

Those of us who might be liberals in the traditional sense are and should be
increasingly disgusted by these trends.

~~~
pXMzR2A
> "Students, prisoners, pacifists and whistle-blowers"\---at least two of
> these, students and whistle-blowers, have been primarily attacked by the
> leftist university administrations and the current American executive, also
> on the left.

What you call "left" in this argument is actually centre right. Sorry but the
left barely exists in the US, compared to other nations. Your confusion is
probably due to the binary party system where, interestingly, 0 = 1.

Anyhow, though they share some common grounds, the left is not and cannot be
"liberal". (For example, no leftist would argue for the corporatization of
free speech in their right minds, as you did in your liberalist comment,
excusing it as "not perfectly ideal".)

For classical leftism, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism)

For modern leftism, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left)

> leftist university administrations and the current American executive, also
> on the left

Leftist university administrators do not exist in the US. No leftist
university administrator would take an active (pro/supporting) role in a
system that depends on the exploitation of adjunct faculty, the active
sabotaging of unions by universities, and the overall commodification[1] of
education.

The current American executive is not leftist either, as demonstrated by their
trend towards building a surveillance system for elitist / corporate US
dictatorship.

In light of the above, you are in no position to call any article "idiotic."

edit: [1] [http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/29/its-impossible-to-
work...](http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/29/its-impossible-to-work-your-
way-through-college-nowadays-revisited-with-national-data/) is an interesting
read.

~~~
belovedeagle
I think you missed my point entirely. I agree that the American left is not
liberal; however, they are very much still the left.

Your argument is basically, "well, these people are doing some shitty things
and therefore they must be on the right, because only the right does shitty
things". Give me a break.

If you want an "ism" which matches up most closely with the concept of "the
left", you're looking for statism. And the American left is very, very much
statist; they just also happen to be capitalist too. I agree that statism and
true liberalism are largely opposed; however, a few decades back, the American
left was somehow also very liberal. At the time, there were many influential
statist visions of liberalism which were quite popular (your "New Left" link
exemplifies this perfectly). So my earlier comment could be restated as
pointing out that what's happening today is that people have become
disillusioned with the oil-and-water mixture of statism and liberalism, and
thus the true liberal elements have moved away from the left. The result is a
kind of coalition between the old right and the departing liberals.

But all of that was more-or-less irrelevant to explain the link.

And, uh, I'm not sure what your link has to do with anything.

------
bko
I never understood how a potential restriction of commercial speak would look
like. Which of these consists of commercial speech and which should be
protected?

1\. MSNBC or Fox News hosts opining on TV

2\. An unpaid op-ed in a for profit publication

3\. A paid op-ed in a for profit publication

4\. Someone handing out political leaflets in the street for free

5\. Someone handing out political leaflets in the street for money or some
other benefit

6\. The movie Juno (could be both pro and anti abortion, depending on who you
ask)

[edit formatting]

~~~
caseydurfee
None of these are commercial speech. For crying out loud. Commercial speech is
speech done by a private corporation for the purposes of furthering their own
economic interests. Even commercial speech is protected as long as it isn't
fraudulent.

I don't know what you mean by "potential restriction". We've had restrictions
on commercial speech since the early days of our country.

~~~
bko
> Commercial speech has been defined by the Supreme Court as speech where the
> speaker is more likely to be engaged in commerce, where the intended
> audience is commercial or actual or potential consumers, and where the
> content of the message is commercial in character.

Commercial speech, such as advertisements, has been ruled by the Supreme Court
to be entitled to less protection under the First Amendment than noncommercial
speech. Under the First Amendment, noncommercial speech is entitled to full
protection, and any sort of content-based regulation is only valid if it can
withstand strict scrutiny. However, commerical speech is not given such
deference. For a content-based regulation of commercial speech to be valid, it
only must withstand intermediate scrutiny.

Additionally, commercial speech that is false or misleading is not entitled to
any protection under the First Amendment, and therefore can be prohibited
entirely.[0]

Sorry, I should have said political speech more generally by a commercial
entity

[0]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech)

------
thecabinet
To summarize: 1A was good when it was being used by liberals/Democrats, but is
bad now that it's being used by conservatives/Republicans.

~~~
Karunamon
Your summary is laughably, trollishly incorrect.

>His study, he said, analyzed First Amendment challenges from businesses to an
array of economic regulations.

Actual summary that's based on the actual article and not whatever tripe you
think you read:

Based on an analysis of challenges to various laws on 1A grounds, more
challenges are being made by corps fighting economic law (as if money were
speech), than by the everyperson.

I'm not sure the conclusion bears out, though. The (patently insane) idea of
money==speech is relatively new. Are there really that many first amendment
abrogations happening on a daily basis for normal people?

I'm also not sure why you chose to make this a partisan issue. Both major
political parties are bought and paid for by large corporations, and framing
corporate gaming of the system as a leftist-only issue is _incredibly_
dishonest.

~~~
AhrowTway
"Money == speech" is a rhetorical device for soapbox points. The ruling for
that was very clear in stating that there is no way to separate _political
speech with the intent to persuade_ from the costs of such speech. (leaflets,
airtime, and meeting halls all cost money) Therefore, spending money on that
type of speech is granted 1A coverage because denying people money for that
type of speech is the same as denying their right to speak.

~~~
Karunamon
Whatever the fine details of the ruling, the proverbial floodgates opened
immediately after CU.

------
marcoperaza
Freedom of Speech does not exist to further the political ends Mr. Lipsak is
sympathetic to. It is the fulfillment in Law of the Free Conscience of Man:
that no man should have to answer in shackles for speaking his mind; that for
his words he should fear nothing but the equally Free Judgment of his peers.

There is ample and settled case law in the US that guarantees nearly unlimited
freedom of expression to individuals and activists. But for over a half-
century now, the state has exerted its power over realms once ruled by the
freely-entered private contract. At its best, the state can be defender of the
peace, guarantor of stability, and investor in tomorrow. But at its worst, it
enviously confiscates wealth, stifles innovation, and denies freedom. Who but
the impartial judge is suited to arbitrate between the democratic legitimacy
of the state, and the human autonomy of the individual? Between guardianship
and freedom?

Criticism of the the Citizens United decision overlooks the specifics of the
case, which are actually very illustrative of the danger of making exceptions
to Freedom of Speech. Citizens United's violation was making a movie critical
of Hillary Clinton within 1 month of a primary. A new campaign finance law
prohibited private "electioneering" featuring candidates within one month of
primaries and two months of general elections. The Federal Elections
Commission believed that Citizens United was in violation and sought a gag
order prohibiting further marketing of the film. Fast forward to the Supreme
Court's decision: Citizens United won on First Amendment grounds. The under-
told angle of this story is that the government had passed a law shielding
itself from criticism when the freedom to criticize is most precious: leading
up to an election! Picture a possible scenario if the court had ruled for the
FEC: if Citizens United had refused to cease marketing the film, the FEC would
have been granted a court order. If Citizens United still refused to stop
spreading their film, the executive officers would have been imprisoned for
contempt of court. The Supreme Court would have been foolish to abandon a
great tradition of free speech and allow people to be punished for spreading a
political message.

An aside: as a journalist working for a very wealthy corporation that
sometimes acts more like a political campaign than a newspaper, Mr. Lipsak
should know better than to so quickly dismiss the free speech of
"corporations" as lesser than that of people.

------
trynumber9
I must be missing something. Why shouldn't corporations benefit from freedom
of speech? I don't care _who_ says it or _what_ it says, freedom of speech is
a fundamental right.

Are not NYT & Harvard companies of some sort? Why should they be protected
under the 1A but not other companies?

~~~
caseydurfee
My goodness, what are they teaching in schools these days?

Commercial speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. It can be restricted
if it passes the Central Hudson test:

1\. The speech regulated is fraudulent, misleading, or proposes an illegal
transaction; or All of the following elements are present: a. The government's
interest in regulating the speech is substantial; b. The restriction directly
advances the government interest; and c. The restriction is no more extensive
than necessary to advance the government interest.

Since the early days of our country, there has been a distinction between
expressive organizations (like the New York Times -- a company that primarily
engages in activities protected by the 1st Amendment -- publishing an article
on how Bob's Chicken will make you sick) and commercial speech (Bill's
Chicken, a competitor, publishing an article on how Bob's Chicken will make
you sick.)

Both Bill's Chicken and the New York Times have freedom of speech. But
commercial speech can be restricted if it's fraudulent or misleading, whereas
expressive organizations are given far more leeway. That seems fairly common
sense to me.

~~~
hackuser
The NY Times also benefits from a specific provision in the Bill of Rights,
freedom of the press.

------
afarrell
Printing presses are and have always been expensive. Those who can organize
people to pay for them will always have that advantage over those who cannot.

------
tessierashpool
saving you a click: corporate takeover because, as corporations are "people"
in a legal sense (although only when it benefits them to be so), they have a
right to free expression.

therefore laws which inhibit corporations from pumping money into politics
violate the First Amendment, although scanning every email you ever write does
_not_ violate the Fourth Amendment. (spoiler alert: yes, it does.)

------
nickysielicki
Don't think we needed a study for that. Frankly, US history classes are
propaganda, and the problem is that they lead us to think that it hasn't
always been this way.

We're just starting to kind of legitimize it. I don't see that as a bad thing,
once you accept that it has always been this way, you realize that
legitimizing it makes it at least out in the open. It's no less dangerous, but
at least it isn't taking place under the table.

------
CoreSet
Unsurprising but still thoroughly depressing.

------
benihana
I wish people would think through citizen's united instead of just spouting
off the 'corporations are people' platitude (convenient no one seems to
mention that unions are also people now). Why should a group of persons not
have the same rights to speech as a single person? What about it being a group
makes it so scary? It's not like the barrier to entry on pooling your money is
any higher than protesting is it?

The argument in this piece seems to boil down to "I am afraid of what
conservative people with money might say, and I don't want them to be able to
use their money to say it." Is there even any evidence that corporations are
using their wealth to influence politics through political ads? Because that's
what this is really about isn't it? Corporations buying elections through ads.
This article is full of vague notions, but there's no real evidence to support
the narrative that this is a problem that's even happening.

~~~
Karunamon
Even if we accept the partisan hackery you've dropped on us here, the idea
that it's not "a problem" is insane. The answer to a lawsuit about something
like false advertising is not "freedom of speech".

The limits on the first amendment right for individuals has been thoroughly
explored in the last century or so - the recent cases, less so. And I feel
that there's value in asking why this sudden change in many years of
jurisprudence.

None of the answers I can conceive reflect very well on the legal or
regulatory systems.

~~~
marcoperaza
First amendment cases concerning private individuals aren't as common anymore
because it's largely settled law. Welcome to America, you have nearly-
unlimited freedom of speech. People don't get arrested for political opinions,
or for posting racist tweets (unlike Europe), or for saying something hateful
things in public (unlike Europe), or for publicly supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS,
or for wearing a swastika and having a Nazi march through a town inhabited by
aging Holocaust survivors (see Skokie). In fact, if a CIA agent walked up to
you and gave you thousands of seriously embarrassing classified documents,
he'd go to jail for a long time but it would be almost impossible for the
government to get a court order stopping you or punishing you for publishing.
Every so often, some local cops overstep their authority and the district
courts take care of it. The Supreme Court is interested in clarifying existing
law, resolving circuit splits, and deciding landmark cases, not in deciding
the same issue repeatedly.

If you say hateful or stupid things, your punishment is that people won't like
you. Amazingly, it works.

