gwillen: (Default)
gwillen ([personal profile] gwillen) wrote2010-01-22 12:40 pm

The Supreme Court decision

For those on my flist, if any, who support the Court's decision in /Citizens United v. FEC/, I would be interested to know your answers to the following questions:

Is a toaster a person?

Is a corporation a person?

Can you explain the difference?

What would it mean for a toaster to have a right to free speech?

What does it mean, precisely, for a corporation to have a right to free speech? This is not the same as the free speech rights enjoyed by any of the people involved as individuals -- this, as ruled by the court, is a separate right, belonging to the corporation as an entity in and of itself, completely independent of the rights of any of the individuals involved.

Can you explain the difference?

ETA: Justice Rehnquist's dissent in /First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti/
makes for excellent reading on the subject.

[identity profile] roseandsigil.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 10:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm claiming that it *is* a noop, and thus disallowing it is questionable.

[identity profile] gwillen.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 10:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, then let me state for the record my claim that what the courts are doing is _not_ the noop, but the abhorrent thing. :-)