Comments on: Defending Internet Speech http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jjv http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80776 jjv Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:37:24 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80776 Aleax: McCain won despite McCain/Feingold not because of it. The key issue in 2008 was the war and who could beat Obama. McCain was the most likely to prosecute the war and beat Obama. Romney's Masscare and lean to the Left while in Massachusetts, while prudent, did not allow him to credibly attach McCain, particularly on Life and Marriage. Giuliani? No. Huckabee had too much economic liberalism and seemed incredible as commander in chief. McCain was the best we had. I wish he had been 10 years younger and willing to take it to Obama relentlessly on his associates, bad choices and inexperience but he was not. Combined with the worst environment for a Republican since 1976 there was not a lot of hope of anyone winning. The Republican electorate made the wisest choice however. Aleax:

McCain won despite McCain/Feingold not because of it. The key issue in 2008 was the war and who could beat Obama. McCain was the most likely to prosecute the war and beat Obama. Romney’s Masscare and lean to the Left while in Massachusetts, while prudent, did not allow him to credibly attach McCain, particularly on Life and Marriage. Giuliani? No. Huckabee had too much economic liberalism and seemed incredible as commander in chief. McCain was the best we had. I wish he had been 10 years younger and willing to take it to Obama relentlessly on his associates, bad choices and inexperience but he was not. Combined with the worst environment for a Republican since 1976 there was not a lot of hope of anyone winning. The Republican electorate made the wisest choice however.

]]> By: aleax http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80740 aleax Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:47:24 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80740 I'm confused: if McCain-Feingold was in so blatant a violation of the Constitution and Conservative principles, how did McCain end up as the last Republican candidate for the Presidency? I’m confused: if McCain-Feingold was in so blatant a violation of the Constitution and Conservative principles, how did McCain end up as the last Republican candidate for the Presidency?

]]> By: kevin47 http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80706 kevin47 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:58:20 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80706 "To that extent, Enron employees wouldn’t likely be prosecutable for the actions of the corporation, unless they had direct responsibility for those actions." That was my point. "On the other hand, one could make the argument that every shareholder in Enron had a level of responsibility." Exactly. “To that extent, Enron employees wouldn’t likely be prosecutable for the actions of the corporation, unless they had direct responsibility for those actions.”

That was my point.

“On the other hand, one could make the argument that every shareholder in Enron had a level of responsibility.”

Exactly.

]]> By: balconesfault http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80682 balconesfault Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:51:59 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80682 <b>We didn’t prosecute every Enron employee, for example. </b> To that extent, Enron employees wouldn't likely be prosecutable for the actions of the corporation, unless they had direct responsibility for those actions. On the other hand, one could make the argument that every shareholder in Enron had a level of responsibility. We didn’t prosecute every Enron employee, for example.

To that extent, Enron employees wouldn’t likely be prosecutable for the actions of the corporation, unless they had direct responsibility for those actions.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that every shareholder in Enron had a level of responsibility.

]]> By: kevin47 http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80675 kevin47 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:51:40 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80675 "We have a ban on foreign nationals who do not reside on US soil contributing to US campaigns. However, it now appears that there is a massive loophole created as many corporations have significant ownership." So fix the loophole with a law, to the degree that it exists outside of talking points land, in a manner that does not violate free speech. "I don’t oppose corporations–I just don’t think they should have the rights of real people. " Do you think they should have the responsibilities of real people? I don't think people opposing treating corporations as individuals under the law really know what they are arguing, and why they are arguing it. We flesh and blood people certainly enjoy the freedoms that come with not being held to account for the deeds of corporations. We didn't prosecute every Enron employee, for example. I decry the influence of Countrywide and MBNA on the mortgage crisis as much as anyone, but changing the way we treat corporations is not going to fix anything. “We have a ban on foreign nationals who do not reside on US soil contributing to US campaigns. However, it now appears that there is a massive loophole created as many corporations have significant ownership.”

So fix the loophole with a law, to the degree that it exists outside of talking points land, in a manner that does not violate free speech.

“I don’t oppose corporations–I just don’t think they should have the rights of real people. ”

Do you think they should have the responsibilities of real people? I don’t think people opposing treating corporations as individuals under the law really know what they are arguing, and why they are arguing it.

We flesh and blood people certainly enjoy the freedoms that come with not being held to account for the deeds of corporations. We didn’t prosecute every Enron employee, for example.

I decry the influence of Countrywide and MBNA on the mortgage crisis as much as anyone, but changing the way we treat corporations is not going to fix anything.

]]> By: advocatusdiaboli http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80657 advocatusdiaboli Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:00:39 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80657 Come off it David, this wasn't about free speech it was about campaign spending by corporations. They want to bend their multi-millions to influence elections without the inconvenience of accountability for their veracity. They are tired of the pesky "people" voting how they wish in their geography--they want the Senator from Banking elected--the Representative from Goldman-Sachs. Corporations are formed to avoid responsibility and accountability of the people owning and controlling them--something we as flesh and blood people don't enjoy. With that abrogation they should not then receive the privileges of living people including Constitutional protections. Our Founders believed strongly in personal responsibility and accountability and gave us inalienable rights in balance. We have squandered it in allowing corporations the privileges of citizenship with a dwindling in the accompanying responsibility and accountability. I don't oppose corporations--I just don't think they should have the rights of real people. Corporations as legal entities are not people and so should have no constitutional rights. Let their masters come out from behind the curtain and stand in the open as people the way we have to to speak and they'll get their free speech--with the proper accountability and responsibility that comes with it for the rest of us. Come off it David, this wasn’t about free speech it was about campaign spending by corporations. They want to bend their multi-millions to influence elections without the inconvenience of accountability for their veracity. They are tired of the pesky “people” voting how they wish in their geography–they want the Senator from Banking elected–the Representative from Goldman-Sachs. Corporations are formed to avoid responsibility and accountability of the people owning and controlling them–something we as flesh and blood people don’t enjoy. With that abrogation they should not then receive the privileges of living people including Constitutional protections. Our Founders believed strongly in personal responsibility and accountability and gave us inalienable rights in balance. We have squandered it in allowing corporations the privileges of citizenship with a dwindling in the accompanying responsibility and accountability. I don’t oppose corporations–I just don’t think they should have the rights of real people. Corporations as legal entities are not people and so should have no constitutional rights. Let their masters come out from behind the curtain and stand in the open as people the way we have to to speak and they’ll get their free speech–with the proper accountability and responsibility that comes with it for the rest of us.

]]> By: jjv http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80656 jjv Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:37:45 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80656 The Court did not overrule any portion of the law the prevented 1) donations to politicians or 2) foreign nationals from influencing elections. What they did say was that a law seeking to keep foreing nationals out of elections has to be narrowly tailored. This law kept me from using the bank acount of a corporation I own and am the sole shareholder of to write a check to put up a poster on my company saying the "Mayor has to Go." This would be a felony mind you. The vast sea of political speech it made criminal acts was just to much. The Court did not overrule any portion of the law the prevented 1) donations to politicians or 2) foreign nationals from influencing elections. What they did say was that a law seeking to keep foreing nationals out of elections has to be narrowly tailored. This law kept me from using the bank acount of a corporation I own and am the sole shareholder of to write a check to put up a poster on my company saying the “Mayor has to Go.” This would be a felony mind you. The vast sea of political speech it made criminal acts was just to much.

]]> By: balconesfault http://www.frumforum.com/defending-internet-speech/comment-page-1#comment-80638 balconesfault Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:08:56 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=20575#comment-80638 We have a ban on foreign nationals who do not reside on US soil contributing to US campaigns. However, it now appears that there is a massive loophole created as many corporations have significant ownership. Did barring foreign nationals from contributing also constitute unreasonable deprivation of free speech? We have a ban on foreign nationals who do not reside on US soil contributing to US campaigns. However, it now appears that there is a massive loophole created as many corporations have significant ownership.

Did barring foreign nationals from contributing also constitute unreasonable deprivation of free speech?

]]>