News & Politics

Featured Posts
jcrew6
Democratic Rep: Amend Constitution To Allow Control Of Speech
by jcrew6
November 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) - A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.

In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/democratic-rep-amend-constitution-to-allow-control-of-speech/


Replies

  • mommasaint
    November 30, 2012 at 7:39 PM

    but, but what would unions do then?! 

    Seriously, what an idiot. 

  • Raintree
    November 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM

    He's talking about overturning citizen's united.

    Nice try.

  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    November 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    Citizens United SC ruling is based on free speech, is it not?  

    Quoting Raintree:

    He's talking about overturning citizen's united.

    Nice try.


  • erika9009
    November 30, 2012 at 7:56 PM

    Yeah, Democrats are about freedom of speech,

    sidesplittinglaughter

    No really, they are.................as long as you agree with them.  Otherwise, it's hate speech or racist and should be banned.

  • 29again
    by 29again
    December 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM

    This is a breakdown of the Bill of Rights, and where we stand with it today:


    1st am.  in trouble!  the only part of that one still strong is freedom of the press and freedom of assembly......as long as you say what they approve of and you are part of OWS.  Otherwise, you are a traitor.

    2nd am.  in trouble! 

    4th am.  dead, with the NDAA.

    5th am.  on life support with the NDAA.

    6th am.  again, NDAA has put this one to bed.

    8th am.  Hmmm, between judges getting personal in their decisions, and the NDAA, this one won't be much of a hindrance to the judiciary.

    9th am.  I think they (and Obama!) has forgotten this one, along with the

    10th am.  What?  There are 10??  News to the libs!!  They don't like this one, as it takes too much away from the federal govt.  They try to pretend it isn't there, or that it is so outdated that it doesn't apply today.

    So, we have the 3rd, which is pretty much out of date, although I can see where it could apply sometime in the future,  (If we still have COTUS around.) and the 7th.  So, as I can see it, we have lost or are in the process of losing 80% of our rights.  Not good, not good at all.

  • rccmom
    by rccmom
    December 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.

  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    December 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM
    What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?





    Quoting rccmom:

    I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.



  • rccmom
    by rccmom
    December 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM

    That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.

    I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.

    Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.


     

    Quoting jcrew6:

    What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?





    Quoting rccmom:

    I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.




  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    December 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM
    It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
    Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


    Quoting rccmom:

    That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


    I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


    Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



     


    Quoting jcrew6:

    What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






    Quoting rccmom:


    I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.






  • itsmesteph11
    December 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM

     One more remark from the sick left.  This is of course crazy. Someone needs to tell him not everyone follows blindly like the Obama kool aid drinkers.

News & Politics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts