When the Supreme Court grants Corporations 1st Amendment rights, it's time

[Pryderi]

to move to Canada and away from the Golems.

[Goldstein1984]

1. It will be time to do everything possible to boycott those

corporations and send the only message TPTB understand--economics.

[glitch]

2. Canada's next.

You might want to go South.

[Land Shark]

3. Then it's time everyone recognized there's a war on natural persons, fight or flight time.

Of course, no real fighting is allowed (unlawful "combatant") or wise, but to make it even more unjust and bizarre in Rasul v Meyers (DC Circuit, April 2009) the DC federal circuit court of appeals held that human beings, at least those detained at Gitmo, are not "persons" in the sense of the use of the word "persons" in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The panel simply speculated that Congress musta not meant persons at Gitmo to be persons.

[triguy46]

4. I thought that they had already done that by some decisions a few years ago...

Wikipedia has a good explanation of this, IMHO.

[Jim Lane]

5. You're correct

See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), available on FindLaw.

Here's of the case:

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes. In his opinion, Justice Lewis Powell ruled that a Massachusetts criminal statute prohibiting the expenditure of corporate funds "for the purpose of ... influencing or affecting" voters' opinions infringed on corporations' "protected speech in a manner unjustified by a compelling state interest."

The case arose because big business wanted to spend money to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed a progressive income tax.

[Pryderi]

6. Isn't there another case before SCOTUS that has to do with the Hillary movie?