Why should freedom of the press apply to corporations if freedom of speech does not?
Posted on April 15th, 2010 by admin
A proposal to amend the Constitution to address the recent Supreme Court decision would allow regulation of speech by corporate entities but not of the press. Why? And would this involve the government having to define more specifically what constitutes the "media?" How would it be defined? Would the press protections only apply to for-profit news organizations? What about public relations departments of corporations? What about advocacy groups like 501(c)(4) organizations and the like?
It can’t be done for the very reasons you suggest. Defining a different set of rules for press vs speech is not possible, nor is creating a different set of rules for corporate entities than individuals.
There s no serious proposal to do that in any event. None of the original 10 amendments have ever been repealed, and that is effectively what this idea would involve. The 1st says "Congress shall pass no law infringing ……" You can’t adjust that, you’d have to strike it out entirely.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
They can shut one person up, but now the Media unless they throw the Constitution out the window!! These guys are walking on dangerous ground!
References :
April 16th, 2010 at 12:18 am
It can’t be done for the very reasons you suggest. Defining a different set of rules for press vs speech is not possible, nor is creating a different set of rules for corporate entities than individuals.
There s no serious proposal to do that in any event. None of the original 10 amendments have ever been repealed, and that is effectively what this idea would involve. The 1st says "Congress shall pass no law infringing ……" You can’t adjust that, you’d have to strike it out entirely.
References :