Comments on: Speech, Not Speakers

By: エドハーディー

エドハーディー — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:32:15 +0000

e American elections? I am pretty sure that the restrictions on foreigners running for o

By: 激安 UGG ブーツ

激安 UGG ブーツ — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:40:50 +0000

商品送料を無料にいたします
信用は第一、スタイルが多い、品質がよい、価格が低い、実物写真UGG ブーツ激安市場

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:07:57 +0000

The practical upshot of the Supreme Court’s interpretation is that some people have more power to assert their viewpoint, by virtue of their association with an organization. Those happy few get to spend their own money, then they also get to spend the organization’s money. The only way to get around that conclusion is to assert that the corporation itself is an entity deserving of First Amendment rights, as though a corporation could somehow make its own decisions. A corporation is an organization made of people, and all those people already have freedom of speech. Their organization doesn’t need to have it, too.

I believe that corporations need to be treated as people for some purposes (forming contracts, for instance). But it also seems obvious that those cases should be strictly limited. In this case, while Scalia’s interpretation isn’t “wrong” per se, it’s also not strictly necessary to give corporations this power. SCOTUS would have been just as correct in their interpretation had they gone the other way, so that’s what they should have done.

By: Klipsch HDT 5.1 Home Theater Setup

Klipsch HDT 5.1 Home Theater Setup — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:30:34 +0000

[...] Speech, Not Speakers [...]

By: Neel Krishnaswami

Neel Krishnaswami — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:57:33 +0000

I was relieved when Lessig decided he was going to switch from free culture to fighting corruption. He own goals everything he does via baroque complexity — he’s like a textbook example of professional deformation.

For example, when he started the Creative Commons, he managed to come up with a collection of licenses that were so complicated they were incompatible with each other. That is, he managed to come up with a set of licenses that make it harder to remix, even though that was his explicit goal. He did this even though it was against the specific advice of the Free Software Foundation — i.e., a group of people who had a quarter-century of prior experience in the matter.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:07:34 +0000

Can someone point me to a well thought out objection to foreigners trying to influence American elections? I am pretty sure that the restrictions on foreigners running for office and against titles were to prevent the rise of a Tory party that would elect the King of England to the Presidency and then crown him “King of America.”

And the Chinese are not going to get somebody elected on a “give Alaska to China” platform or anything.

In any event, so long as the U.S. has a foreign policy, I don’t see any issue with foreigners trying to influence the government, through elections or otherwise. Can anyone see an injustice with the Organization of Wedding Planners of the NWFP, Inc. running an ad campaign entitled “Please Vote For The Guy Who Will Not Bomb Us”?

By: Jess Austin

Jess Austin — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:44:35 +0000

Good grief, Lessig is lost in the weeds. Rather than talking his more strident supporters down from the ledge, “we don’t like this, but we’re concentrating on things we can actually change”, he offers… a constitutional amendment.

It’s frustrating, because Lessig is one of the good guys. In light of his latest efforts and the whole Eldred fiasco, I kind of wish we had a *better* good guy.