Friam

What you can do.

Classic

List

Threaded

25 messages Options

Robert J. Cordingley

What you can do.

Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Grant Holland

Re: What you can do.

Thanks, Robert. I signed it.

Grant

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Grant Holland
Santa Fe, NM

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in "Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission". The message I got from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is spelled out up front. "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the premise that "you can get at least one half of the American public to sign anything if you word the question properly".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts. http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

jpgirard

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

And if you're local Santa Fe, you can come discuss this and other recent politically oriented FRIAM postings in person!

Tomorrow (Saturday the 15th), over beers, at 2nd Street Brewery in the Railyard. 6:30 pm.

www.drinkingliberally.org

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [FRIAM] What you can do.
From: "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 8:12 am
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[hidden email]>

Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Merle Lefkoff

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem,
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

> Dear Group,
>
> As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
>
> As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases
> before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues
> (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television
> broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in
> the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be
> frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in
> "*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got
> from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that
> citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information
> is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is
> spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate
> political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but
> it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
> has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the
> Georges Bush,
>
> I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and
> incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the
> premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to
> sign anything if you word the question properly*".
>
> It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual
> majority opinion summarised here
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
>
> Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional
> democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one
> of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.
> http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
> interest:
> http://movetoamend.org/
> Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
> Thanks
> Robert
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Merle Lefkoff

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by jpgirard

Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Count me in Jim. Save me a seat (the Madrona Institute office is across
the street). Has Friam turned into a drinking club?

[hidden email] wrote:

> And if you're local Santa Fe, you can come discuss this and other
> recent politically oriented FRIAM postings in person!
>
> Tomorrow (Saturday the 15th), over beers, at 2nd Street Brewery in
> the Railyard. 6:30 pm.
>
> www.drinkingliberally.org <http://www.drinkingliberally.org>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [FRIAM] What you can do.
> From: "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 8:12 am
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
>
> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
> interest:
> http://movetoamend.org/
> Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
> Thanks
> Robert
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> <http://www.friam.org/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Chris Feola

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem,
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment.<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.htmlcjf,recoveringjournalistChristopherJ.FeolaPresident,nextPressionFollowmeonTwitter:http://twitter.com/cjfeola-----OriginalMessage-----From:friam-bounces@redfish.com[mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com]OnBehalfOfMerleLefkoffSent:Friday,May14,20101:39PMTo:TheFridayMorningAppliedComplexityCoffeeGroupSubject:Re:[FRIAM]Whatyoucando.merlelefkoffwrote:Sarbajitmissestheboatcompletely.Thereasonthatthegovernment">"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml


cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."



sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert

    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: What you can do.

Non-expert opinions to follow:
I too think this issue is fairly nuanced. In particular I am startled in the quote Chris supplied that journalists would be surprised to find they work for corporations. I think the straightforward reading of the first amendment is that people have the right to express themselves. Thus, it is Glen Beck's right to be "Glen Beck Crazy" and explain to the world how the distribution of cherry pies and eclairs will never feed enough toy soldiers for the economy to survive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUOKQq664GY).

To the extent that government regulation of the newspapers and television stations would curtail the individual's right to expression, it should not be allowed. Clearly it would, thus it is not allowed (or at least restricted to issues of profanity, etc.). To somehow twist that into saying that the corporation itself, say Fox News, has the rights is odd. What would 'Fox News', the corporate entity, say if it had free reign? Nothing, that's just weird.

When we allow that 'Fox News' can say something, rather than insisting on the obvious fact that people who works for Fox News says things, we slip ever further into the danger zone Orwell warned about in Politics and the English Language.

Similarly, if people at an organization want to give a lot of money to a candidate, or create an advertisement to support him, that should be protected by the constitution. I'm not sure whether or not corporations should be allowed to do the same, but I can't for the life of me see how such activities would be protected by the first amendment.

Eric

On Fri, May 14, 2010 06:20 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting!
  the Fir
st Amendment.<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.htmlcjf,recoveringjournalistChristopherJ.FeolaPresident,nextPressionFollowmeonTwitter:http://twitter.com/cjfeola-----OriginalMessage-----From:friam-bounces@redfish.com%5Bmailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com%5DOnBehalfOfMerleLefkoffSent:Friday,May14,20101:39PMTo:TheFridayMorningAppliedComplexityCoffeeGroupSubject:Re:%5BFRIAM%5DWhatyoucando.merlelefkoffwrote:Sarbajitmissestheboatcompletely.Thereasonthatthegovernment" onclick="window.open('http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.htmlcjf,recoveringjournalistChristopherJ.FeolaPresident,nextPressionFollowmeonTwitter:http://twitter.com/cjfeola-----OriginalMessage-----From:friam-bounces@redfish.com[mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com]OnBehalfOfMerleLefkoffSent:Friday,May14,20101:39PMTo:TheFridayMorningAppliedComplexityCoffeeGroupSubject:Re:[FRIAM]Whatyoucando.merlelefkoffwrote:Sarbajitmissestheboatcompletely.Thereasonthatthegovernment');return false;">"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml


cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for democra
cy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."



sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html');return false;">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm" onclick="window.open('!
 http://w
ww.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm');return false;">http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
<robert@... <mailto:robert@...>> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://movetoamend.org/" onclick="window.open('http://movetoamend.org/');return false;">http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert

    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friam.org" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friam.org" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friam.org" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friam.org" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Carl Tollander

Re: What can 'you' do?

In reply to this post by Chris Feola

The choice is both and neither, as they are false choices. You have
conflated 'media', 'person', 'corporation', and 'forum'. Congress may
very well restrict media, for example, I may take it as my freedom of
expression to jam some competing media channel with noise, or stray
outside my FCC sanctioned portion of the radio, broadcasting, say,
"Pepsi Cola hits the spot, 12 full ounces that's a lot", over and over
at very high power, such that you receive it in your tooth fillings.
(One might also talk here about BP). Anyhow, if I were to do so, I
might rightly expect a visit from representatives of my government. The
government certainly also has an interest in folks not using media to
explicitly incite the citizenry to violence against others.

The point at issue may be less whether corporations are persons or
persons are corporate (one may be happier or not with the latter notion)
but whether corporations are citizens with citizen's rights. All states
to some degree regulate commerce and thus corporations (for example in
their role as guarantors of contracts), in ways they do not regulate
persons who are citizens or persons in general. The relation is not
symmetrical. Corporations and citizens accordingly have different kinds
of rights and responsibilities, but those of corporations are statutory
and not inalienable.

It seems to me that the framers (if we attribute to them or their
interpreters omniscience) might reasonably have expected that their
words about rights applied more to citizens and less to corporate
entities. It is also written that Congress shall make no law
restricting freedom of assembly, but there are no fundamental rights
awarded or conceived for such assemblies (hmmm, do emergent entities
have constitutional rights?), whether corporations or states; the
assembly itself does not have the status of citizen in a democracy. It
is reasonable for the government to require that corporate generated or
sanctioned messages over media to be the responsibility of a particular
citizen, since only citizens and not assemblies have that
constitutionally sanctioned freedom of expression.

Clearly some net neutrality stuff related to this too. Another time.

I'm Carl and I approved this message.

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

> Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
> that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
> obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
> "media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
> therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
>
> 1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
> can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
> 2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
> Amendment rights.
>
> Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
> law..."
>
> But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
> Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
>
> "And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
> talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
> extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
> is criminal in America?"
>
> "I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
> are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
> corporations. . . .
>
> "A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
> decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
> but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
> vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
> debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
> constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
> well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
> Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
> Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
> real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
> ml
>
>
> cjf, recovering journalist
>
> Christopher J. Feola
> President, nextPression
> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Merle Lefkoff
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
>
> merle lefkoff wrote:
>
> Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government
> "may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
> corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem,
> because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
> person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the
> legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
> democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme
> Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."
>
>
>
> sarbajit roy wrote:
>
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
>>
>> As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases
>> before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues
>> (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television
>> broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in
>> the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be
>> frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in
>> "*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got
>> from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that
>> citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information
>> is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is
>> spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate
>> political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but
>> it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
>> has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the
>> Georges Bush,
>>
>> I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and
>> incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the
>> premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to
>> sign anything if you word the question properly*".
>>
>> It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual
>> majority opinion summarised here
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
>>
>> Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional
>> democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one
>> of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.
>> http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
>> interest:
>> http://movetoamend.org/
>> Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
>> Thanks
>> Robert
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Chris Feola

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see

that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its

obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for

"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision

therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times

can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.

2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st

Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no

law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd

Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're

talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an

extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president

is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there

are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for

corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this

decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated

but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was

vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is

debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a

constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as

well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice

Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First

Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are

real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht

ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola

President, nextPression

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf

Of Merle Lefkoff

Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government

"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law

corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem,

because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a

person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the

legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for

democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme

Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases

before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues

(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television

broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in

the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be

frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in

"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got

from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that

citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information

is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is

spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate

political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but

it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.

has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the

Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and

incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the

premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to

sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual

majority opinion summarised here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional

democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one

of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley

<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of

    interest:

    http://movetoamend.org/

    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?

    Thanks

    Robert

    ============================================================

    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Chris Feola

Thanks

The way I understand it (and this is common in both our democracies) is

1) Citizens have a Fundamental ( "inalienable") right to freedom of Speech and Expression.

2) It is trite to say (and legally well settled) that this right is predicate upon the right to Freedom of Information. ie. a citizen cannot speak unless he is fully informed. Similarly in legal proceedings both parties must have information symmetry - this is ensured by inspection / discovery etc.

3) The reality today is that the media (TV, newspapers / Internet etc) is almost exclusively controlled by corporations or govt. The "voice of the citizen" people are defending / fighting for is a myth. Individual citizens have been reduced to twitting and blogging. So the 5:4 decision was actually a judgement for upholding the freedom of the press and deserves to be respected if it has achieved finality.

4) There is a much larger issue involved (of which this is an aspect) concerning the nature of the society the US has shaped itself into. If today you live in a media controlled society driven by breaking news, spin doctors and manipulated "popular opinion" you should seriously research the extreme opposite end of the social spectrum - where communication is by carrier pigeons and personal couriers - and the publication of images is banned.

5) My US friends should also examine their First Amendment Rights in the context of the Second Amendment (which most civilised democracies reject).

Sarbajit

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Chris Feola <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Chris Feola

Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our democracy].
Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see

that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its

obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for

"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision

therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times

can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.

2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st

Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no

law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd

Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're

talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an

extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president

is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there

are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for

corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this

decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated

but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was

vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is

debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a

constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as

well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice

Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First

Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are

real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht

ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola

President, nextPression

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf

Of Merle Lefkoff

Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government

"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law

corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem,

because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a

person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the

legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for

democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme

Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases

before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues

(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television

broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in

the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be

frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in

"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got

from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that

citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information

is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is

spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate

political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but

it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.

has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the

Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and

incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the

premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to

sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual

majority opinion summarised here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional

democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one

of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley

<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of

    interest:

    http://movetoamend.org/

    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?

    Thanks

    Robert

    ============================================================

    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: What you can do.

Dear Robert

1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be "communism".

2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal.

3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this

a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."

b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject."

c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations."

e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution").

For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted."

g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.)."

Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise, whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother judges.

Sarbajit

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see

that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its

obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for

"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision

therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times

can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.

2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st

Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no

law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd

Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're

talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an

extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president

is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there

are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for

corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this

decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated

but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was

vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is

debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a

constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as

well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice

Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First

Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are

real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht

ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola

President, nextPression

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf

Of Merle Lefkoff

Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government

"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law

corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem,

because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a

person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the

legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for

democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme

Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases

before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues

(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television

broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in

the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be

frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in

"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got

from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that

citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information

is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is

spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate

political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but

it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.

has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the

Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and

incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the

premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to

sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual

majority opinion summarised here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional

democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one

of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley

<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of

    interest:

    http://movetoamend.org/

    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?

    Thanks

    Robert

    ============================================================

    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: What you can do.

Oops a small clarification,

"2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell.

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Robert

1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be "communism".

2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal.

3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this

a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."

b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject."

c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations."

e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
:
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution").
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted."

g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.)."

Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise, whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother judges.

Sarbajit
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our democracy].
Thanks
Robert
On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
 
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.
 
Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."
 
But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
 
"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"
 
"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .
 
"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml
 
 
cjf, recovering journalist
 
Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
 
-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
 
merle lefkoff wrote:
 
Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."
 
 
 
sarbajit roy wrote:
  
Dear Group,
 
As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
 
As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,
 
I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".
 
It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
 
Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
 
Sarbajit
 
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:
 
    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert
 
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
    
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
  
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russell Gonnering

Re: What you can do.

Sarbajit-

This is the most eloquent defense I have seen for the reason we must strive to remain a nation governed by law and not by people. While I enjoy some of the programming on PBS, I shudder to think of a time in which the press is controlled (funded) by the government and the PBS view the only information available. Dissent would be virtually impossible. While many would rejoice at the ability to shut up Glenn Beck, Woodward and Bernstein would never have existed, either.

The viewpoint, recently given some traction by our politicians, that we have "too much information available" and the unwashed are incapable of discerning what is true and what is not is the road to slavery. While empowering the governing party to limit information may look good now, after 2012 I would imagine dissent will again be extolled as the highest form of patriotism.

Too much information is not a problem for a democratic republic. It means that cogent explanations of ideas, put forward in clear and convincing ways, are required of politicians. Obfuscation is not the comfortable option it is when ideas are limited.

Russ#3

Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ

[hidden email]

www.emergenthealth.net

On May 15, 2010, at 12:55 PM, sarbajit roy wrote:

Oops a small clarification,

"2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Robert

1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be "communism".

2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal.

3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this

a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."

b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject."

c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations."

e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
:
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution").
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted."

g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.)."

Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise, whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother judges.

Sarbajit
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our democracy].
Thanks
Robert
On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
 
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.
 
Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."
 
But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
 
"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"
 
"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .
 
"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml
 
 
cjf, recovering journalist
 
Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
 
-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
 
merle lefkoff wrote:
 
Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."
 
 
 
sarbajit roy wrote:
  
Dear Group,
 
As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
 
As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,
 
I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".
 
It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
 
Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
 
Sarbajit
 
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:
 
    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert
 
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
    
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
  
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Sarbajit,

The better your posts get, the more ambivalent I become about them. I am grateful for (and a tad shamed by) the extensive work you have put into the campaign financing decision. But I think giving corporations unlimited power to pour money into politics is dangerously close to handing out megaphones to theatre goers so they can cry "fire!" more effectively. When our current oilspill begins contaminating the shorelines of Ireland and Brittany perhaps you will join me in being distressed by the power that american corporations have over the public mind and thereby over our government.

The case is a lot like the second amendment. If one accepts that the purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that the government would never have more armaments than its people (one perfectly reasonable interpretation, as i understand the history of the constitutuional convention), then the only route to a reasonably civil society is an amendment to the constitution.

But I think the constitutuional argument for a bazooka in every closet is a lot stronger than the argument for corporations as people, since, corporations were in the 18th century, creations of the government.

But, this is about as much time as I can put into it today. I just want to leave a marker that say's HEY! Our government is hovering on the brink of corporate fascism, here, and not withstanding your close analysis of the decision, something has to be done.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 5/15/2010 11:55:45 AM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Oops a small clarification,

"2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell.

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Robert

1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be "communism".

2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal.

3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this

a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."

b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject."

c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speakand it does notthe option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations."

e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution").
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that eranewspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted."

g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.)."

Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise, whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother judges.

Sarbajit

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our democracy].
Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isnt? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their personhood often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of We the People by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml

cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem,
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."

sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the
Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and
incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to
sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual
majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert

    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Russ,

The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see
corporations for what they are: HUGE governments.

Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than
from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be
subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only
WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be
controlled by the government with the most responsible governance
structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME.

Gotta Run,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 5/15/2010 12:19:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
>
> Sarbajit-
>
> This is the most eloquent defense I have seen for the reason we must
strive to remain a nation governed by law and not by people. While I enjoy
some of the programming on PBS, I shudder to think of a time in which the
press is controlled (funded) by the government and the PBS view the only
information available. Dissent would be virtually impossible. While many
would rejoice at the ability to shut up Glenn Beck, Woodward and Bernstein
would never have existed, either.
>
> The viewpoint, recently given some traction by our politicians, that we
have "too much information available" and the unwashed are incapable of
discerning what is true and what is not is the road to slavery. While
empowering the governing party to limit information may look good now,
after 2012 I would imagine dissent will again be extolled as the highest
form of patriotism.
>
> Too much information is not a problem for a democratic republic. It
means that cogent explanations of ideas, put forward in clear and
convincing ways, are required of politicians. Obfuscation is not the
comfortable option it is when ideas are limited.

>
> Russ#3
>
>
>
> Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ
> [hidden email]
> www.emergenthealth.net
>
>
> On May 15, 2010, at 12:55 PM, sarbajit roy wrote:
>
> > Oops a small clarification,
> >
> > "2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the

decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the

part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional
under McConnell.
> >
> > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> > Dear Robert
> >
> > 1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is
commonly understood to be "communism".
> >
> > 2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the
decision of the lower court in appeal.
> >
> > 3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the
judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending
the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the
judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people
have written /commented . The majority said this
> >
> > a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the
Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone
Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords
Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis
exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to
allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for
independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled
basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government
can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."
> >
> > b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate
case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned,
especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a
constitutional right to speak on this subject."
> >
> > c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what
political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous
tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and
criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC
to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question.
Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their
judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is
an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."
> >
> > d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact
that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U.
S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association
from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban,
§441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could
somehow allow a corporation to speakand it does notthe option to form
PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are
burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to
extensive regulations."
> >
> > e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is
thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or
group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute
"necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number
of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the
audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam).
Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress
speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the
speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.)
(Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production
and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires
the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to
individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or
manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence
entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
> > :
> > Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to
hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In
a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to
make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right
of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach
consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary
means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent
application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu
v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989)
(quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see
Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the
qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of
government established by our Constitution").
> >
> > For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that
would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.
> >
> > f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment,
as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech
by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business
and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S.
334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television
networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the
most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First
Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of
political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a
response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in
England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies.
See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297
U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between
the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were
published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication
of that eranewspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at
341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding,
speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of
itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B.
Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any
number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals
could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic
1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual
sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and
various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers
or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and
media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of
speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas
when the Bill of Rights was adopted."
> >
> > g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful
and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair
discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might
suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and
candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the
Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to
experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must
be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The
civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe
the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of
KENNEDY, J.)."
> >
> > Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise,
whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother
judges.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Perhaps this helps:
> > http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
> > the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining
investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government
sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but
with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as
another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our
democracy].

> > Thanks
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
> >>
> >> No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who is press? Who isnt? Who decides?
> >>
> >>
> >> cjf
> >>
> >> Christopher J. Feola
> >> President, nextPression
> >> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
> >>
> >>
> >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On

Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
> >> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on

the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone
to help us with.
> >>
> >> So see this quote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:
> >>
> >> . . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no
thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the
activities of human beings, to be sure, and their personhood often serves
as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of We the
People by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you
will see
> >> that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
> >> obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
> >> "media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this
decision
> >> therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
> >>
> >> 1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York
Times
> >> can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
> >> 2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get
1st
> >> Amendment rights.
> >>
> >> Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
> >> law..."
> >>
> >> But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
> >> Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
> >>
> >> "And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious!
We're
> >> talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
> >> extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for
president
> >> is criminal in America?"
> >>
> >> "I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that
there
> >> are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work
for
> >> corporations. . . .
> >>
> >> "A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of
viewing this
> >> decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was
vindicated
> >> but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote,
was
> >> vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word
'democracy' is
> >> debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation
of a
> >> constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal
document as
> >> well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says.
"Justice
> >> Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the
First
> >> Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the
values are
> >> real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
> >>
> >>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht

> >> ml
> >>
> >>
> >> cjf, recovering journalist
> >>
> >> Christopher J. Feola
> >> President, nextPression
> >> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On

Behalf

> >> Of Merle Lefkoff
> >> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
> >>
> >> merle lefkoff wrote:
> >>
> >> Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government
> >> "may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
> >> corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem,
> >> because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
> >> person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain

the
> >> legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
> >> democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent

Supreme

> >> Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sarbajit roy wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Group,
> >>
> >> As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
> >>
> >> As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases
> >> before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues
> >> (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television
> >> broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in
> >> the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be
> >> frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in
> >> "*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got
> >> from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that
> >> citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information
> >> is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is
> >> spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate
> >> political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but
> >> it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
> >> has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the
> >> Georges Bush,
> >>
> >> I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and
> >> incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the
> >> premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to
> >> sign anything if you word the question properly*".
> >>
> >> It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual
> >> majority opinion summarised here
> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
> >>
> >> Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional
> >> democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one
> >> of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.
> >> http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
> >>
> >> Sarbajit
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
> >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
> >> interest:
> >> http://movetoamend.org/
> >> Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
> >> Thanks
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Russell Gonnering

Re: What you can do.

Nick-

Why not have both Fox and the BBC? Or more to the point, why not Fox and PBS?

Fox is not like a government in the following ways: It can't tax me, it doesn't redistribute my wealth, it can't imprison me, it can't execute me or otherwise control me and I can turn them off. If they do not satisfy their viewers and their shareholders, they go out of business. Unless they are "too big to fail", which is a whole other discussion.

I have this innate dislike for government censorship, and a very strong distrust of politicians.

I like the fact that government is limited, and so did the framers of the Constitution. I can see no historical evidence of a political entity, that when granted absolute power over the flow of information to society for an unlimited period of time, used that power to increase or even merely insure the liberty of its citizens. Can you? If ever there is a situation of giving megaphones to people to yell "Fire" in the theater, it would be that.

To each his own, I guess.

Russ #3

Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ

[hidden email]

www.emergenthealth.net

On May 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Russ,

The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see
corporations for what they are: HUGE governments.

Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than
from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be
subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only
WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be
controlled by the government with the most responsible governance
structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME.

Gotta Run,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

Victoria Hughes

Re: What you can do.

In reply to this post by Russell Gonnering

It means we need to re-learn how to think clearly

It means we need to remember and risk taking thoughtful informed action, or choose to not respond from the same criteria.

I have found, in working with adults around this country, that the average person is capable of much more cogent analytical thought and larger perspective than is generally assumed: but has gotten out of the habit of doing it. The general level of fear around us keeps people weary of individual thought and the concurrent risks and benefits. Change looks threatening to our reptilian brains, whose hyper-alertness is especially triggered at the moment.

At the same time as Friam's current discussion, I've been amidst details of Daniel Webster's successful 1819 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Dartmouth College,

The decision effectively set in place the legal justification for corporate rights over state rights.

This comes from The Metaphysical Club - Google Books, Louis Menand's history of the development of ideas in America, highly recommended. Been re-reading this excellent book, and find that many of the discussions here have been ongoing since the early-mid 1800's, if not longer.

Stereo, wow.

Here's an overview of the case from another source:

Government Documents: The Dartmouth College Case

Supreme Court Decision text and note of the SC decision.

Tory

Too much information is not a problem for a democratic republic. It means that cogent explanations of ideas, put forward in clear and convincing ways, are required of politicians. Obfuscation is not the comfortable option it is when ideas are limited.

Russ#3
Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ
[hidden email]
www.emergenthealth.net

<PastedGraphic-3.tiff>
On May 15, 2010, at 12:55 PM, sarbajit roy wrote:
Oops a small clarification,

"2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Robert

1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be "communism".

2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal.

3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this

a) "Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech."

b) "We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject."

c) "Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

d) "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations."

e) "Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign," that statute "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by "attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas," for "effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others"). If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
:
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ("In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential"). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment " `has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution").
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

f) "There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 360-361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252-253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 245-248; Near, 283 U. S., at 713-714. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 341-343; id., at 367 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society's definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) ("Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides"); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) ("[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans'] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various"). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted."

g) "Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.)."

Finally, the majority decision is a reasoned and sober legal exercise, whereas Justice Steven's dissent is a personalised rant against his brother judges.

Sarbajit
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote. BTW, in the face of declining investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public funding but with a legal mandate to be independent. You can look at the BBC News as another model. Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem [threat to our democracy].
Thanks
Robert
On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn’t? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to help us with.

So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
 
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.
 
Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."
 
But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
 
"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"
 
"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .
 
"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml
 
 
cjf, recovering journalist
 
Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
 
-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
 
merle lefkoff wrote:
 
Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."
 
 
 
sarbajit roy wrote:
  
Dear Group,
 
As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
 
As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,
 
I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".
 
It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
 
Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
 
Sarbajit
 
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
<[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:
 
    Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
    interest:
    http://movetoamend.org/
    Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
    Thanks
    Robert
 
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
    
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
  
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-----------------------------------

TORY HUGHES

[hidden email]

Tory Hughes website

Facebook|Tory Hughes Art

------------------------------------