Re Olberman: Given Citizens United and other decisions - isn't giving money , - free speech?

[karynnj]

Olberman did not announce that he gave money nor is it a secret he prefers the left, why is this a problem? The fact is that Hannity spoke of some of the candidates he gave too - I guess encouraging his disciples to follow suit.

[skepticscott]

1. You people really don't get anything, do you?

The First Amendment says only that CONGRESS cannot restrict speech. It does not apply in any way, shape or form to private employers. Citizens United is not an analogous situtation at all.

[virtualobserver]

2. the free speech of a corporation (person) cannot be restricted......

but Corporations can restrict the free speech of a human person.


Since a Corporation is a person, owning stock is kind of like slavery.

[Igel]

4. Sure it can.

Just not, per SCOTUS, by the government--at least not without a sufficiently compelling reason.

Stockholders want to limit corporate free speech--their own free speech--they're fully entitled to it.

In the same way, if KO wants to limit his own free speech by signing a contract in which he agrees to abide by workplace rules, he's perfectly free to do so.

Now, if the enforcement of the contract is biased, it's a different question. Nobody's shown that, however.

[virtualobserver]

6. there is no evidence that any such workplace rules were actually in place

......if they were, then Mornin' Joe would have been suspended.

[skepticscott]

5. Why do you deliberately leave off the qualifier?

"the free speech of a corporation (person) cannot be restricted......" BY CONGRESS. That is the only thing the First Amendment applies to. It places no proscriptions whatsoever on what corporations can do to restrict speech by their employees.

[virtualobserver]

7. they either have the policy or they don't

they don't get to selectively enforce.

[skepticscott]

9. Which is totally irrelevant to

the post of yours I was responding to. Would you care to address the point, or are you going to shift topics?

[virtualobserver]

10. It is actually your point ....

....that is irrelevant, if they either selectively enforce, or if the policy doesn't even exist.


But considering your point, Olbermann's donation is private speech that takes place outside of the workplace.
Whether his speech is to a friend in his living room, or using a computer in his living room to send "speech" to his favorite candidate.
a Corporation does not control your private speech.


And the "rule" as stated by Olbermann's boss, even if it was an eforceable one,
requires that "permission" be asked prior to donating. Which means that the Corporation can say yes to one person and no to the next.
That would never survive a court battle.

[kelly1mm]

12. Wasn't Juan Williams sending his speech to fox viewers? Should

his freedom of speech been protected?

By the way, all this 1st ammendment argument is bogus as the GOVERNMENT is not allowed to restrict speech per the 1st ammendment. Not private actors.

[virtualobserver]

13. Juan Williams' freedom of speech is protected

but NPR and MSNBC have the right to fire either of them if they don't like what they are saying over the airwaves.

Corporations don't have the right to control what I say to my neighbor, or my private speech through political donations.

[kelly1mm]

14. Sure they do. They are NOT THE GOVERNMENT. They are not

subject to the same prohibitions the govenrment is on free speech.

Question: Do you think your employer (absent a contract) could fire you for having an "Obama 2012" or "Obama sucks" bumper sticker?

Answer: Absent state laws against it (and I know of only 2, NY and CA) they sure can.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT.

[virtualobserver]

15. I never said it did......

If you go back to my first post my point was the following.


"the free speech of a corporation (person) cannot be restricted......
but Corporations can restrict the free speech of a human person.


Since a Corporation is a person, owning stock is kind of like slavery"

My post was intended to point out.....since Corporations are a legal person, they are the only kind of person you can own.
I was also making the point that Corporations can do whatever they want now, in terms of massive donations to PAC's and yet they can
fire me if they don't like my ideas.


My only problem in the Olbermann situation is the arbitrary application of this policy. I see the "permission" requirement as the problem.
Inconsistent application of a rule would definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. Juries are very sympathetic when Corporations are unfair.

Beyond that, I know that a corporation can fire me for political reasons. But they have no right to control my actions outside
of the workplace......they only have the right to fire me.

[kelly1mm]

16. The only real control any corporation (or individual) that you work

for has is the right, ultimately, to fire you. They can't actually force you to do anything. You can always just quit and then do what you want anyway. I am not understanding your last paragraph.

As far as the arbitrary application problem, per the RMS, Joe S. of MSNBC got pre approval for his contributions. I have not seen any other questionable donations.

[virtualobserver]

18. Pat Buchanan n/t

[kelly1mm]

20. Good point. I think MSNBC is splitting hairs by trying to say Pat

is a "contributor" rather than a "news person". We will see how that shakes out.

[onenote]

17. of course the free speech of a corporation can be limited, just not by the govt

if a corporation enters into a contract with another corporation that, for example, contractually bars the one corporation from engaging in a particular type of speech, its perfectly legit and enforceable.

[virtualobserver]

19. but in broad terms, it is one-sided

they can fire us, shoot money out of a fire hose at politicians, who create legislation that favors them, and put up SC nominees who reinterpret the Constitution in their favor.

[COLGATE4]

21. You]re wrong. A corporation can make the rules and follow them

as it sees fit. The golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The fact that MSNBC applied the rule against KO and not against Scarborough is irrelevant.

[JVS]

23. Because those are the kind of qualifiers that allow a state to officially guarantee rights that...

are stripped away by other organizations.


Would you consider "There is no imprisonment, torture, or execution of political dissidents by the state, but the party (an organization distinct from the state) runs camps"

or "The US government doesn't torture, but we farm prisoners out to countries that do"

to be examples of upholding rights?

[littlewolf]

3. not according to the SC .... only corp. not individuals ...

[Doctor_J]

8. Yes, and free speech does not protect me from my employer

It protects me from prosecution - that's it.

Please stop declaring that the constitution prevents my employers from firing me for speech offensive to them. That is false.

[kelly1mm]

11. Yes it is. Let me know when the government goes after Keith for that. nt

[appleannie1]

22. Just told MSNBC they have lost a viewer. Encourage others to do so also

[obama14]

24. Free Speech only applys to the government... People keep confusing that.

Freedom of Speech has to with the government oppressing it.

You cant just walk in to a movie theater and shout fire, You dont have free speech in schools, etc.

You sign a contract, says you can do this - and you do it - what the point of having a contract.

I think its more a shot across the bow and not a real firing.

[Dr Morbius]

25. Giving money is not free speech.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, giving money cannot be free speech. Unless one person is able to speak a billion times louder than everyone else, spending money is NOT free speech.

[Tsiyu]

26. Well you must understand the process

The process currently is to make the Little Person realize that they are to be heavily controlled, regulated and punished. Whether for free speech or whatever "crimes" they are guilty of committing.

The BIg People, on the other hand, can lie, steal, cheat, commit fraud, and say whatever they like and they are free as the wind to do so in the New Murika.

Get used to it.

this is a nation by the corporations, for the corporations. So just keep buying their shit, spending all your money on their packaged crap, but don't you dare have an opinion.