SCOTUS Rules First Amendment is Constitutional

[grunion]

"SCOTUS Rules First Amendment is Constitutional."

Well, that's a relief. I thought we might be facing THIS:

If you check this linked thread, please note the tags and the date.

That is just blood chilling, Brown. An absolute disgrace.

 

[geni]

As for the giant cross, it is a pretty poorly-concieved idea for a memorial to anything other than Christ unless immediately recognizeable imagery related to the miulitary is added, which then become kind of blasphemous.

It hasn't resulted in many objections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Sacrifice

 

[BStrong]

If they don't have the political will, we should help them out with some Tannerite.

Danny wouldn't like that.

 

[BStrong]

Nitpick: that's a Springfield 1903 rifle with a WW1 US-adopted English tin hat.

But I agree, it would be awesome.

Check that image Polaris, that's an 1917 Enfield pattern:

Could be .303 or /06. WWI and substitute standard in WWII as well.

ETA - Damn! Lefty beat me to it.

 

[Beerina]

FWIW, I think their decision today on the Stolen Valor Act (U.S. v. Alvarez) also upholds the First Amendment. Basically there is no state interest in enforcing respect for medals that outweighs (or at all?) the right to free speech.

Indeed the problem of people lying about having earned such medals is not less, but more free speech--just point out that they're lying.

Exactly my argument about the corporate free speech issue. The correct response is more free speech, not using guns to silence people.

 

[grunion]

Exactly my argument about the corporate free speech issue. The correct response is more free speech, not using guns to silence people.

Guns are people too - would you silence them?

 

[grunion]

That is just blood chilling, Brown. An absolute disgrace.

Ooops, forgot to check the tags. Heh.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Exactly my argument about the corporate free speech issue. The correct response is more free speech, not using guns to silence people.

And in fact I agree with you on that issue too. (Except for the inflammatory use of "guns" when we're talking about laws.) I've been arguing that the proposed amendments have a serious throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem, and the solution is more free speech and better disclosure laws.

I don't look on it as a corporate free speech issue, though. The freedom of association (that is engaging in speech acts collectively with other people, usually by pooling resources) has been ruled to be an integral part of First Amendment free speech. (On a tangent, I'm pretty sure this is what Romney actually meant when he said "Corporations are people, buddy". That is, the freedom of association is an individual right.)

 

[Beerina]

I use the "guns" term precisely because, should you resist hard enough, they will indeed be used. It's the "civil" fiction that people need to be reminded is not the core reality.

"Oh well, lost the election, now other people get to say what I have to do." Nothing civil in there that I can see.


Removing money from politics, or limiting speech, or whatever -- these are just clumsy attempts to hinder "the other guy" from gaining and wielding government power. The correct solution is to reduce the power that can be wielded. Then who gains it becomes less important. Our country continues rocketing in the wrong direction, as evidenced this week, among many.

 

[RandFan]

The correct solution is to reduce the power that can be wielded.

Those who spend millions for that power aren't about to simply let anyone "limit" their power. To think otherwise, IMHO, is naive at best. You are talking about bringing a wiffle bat to a nuclear fight.