T

The second case which was done on the same day, was for allowing businesses and corporations the ability to pay political campaigners any amount of money they want. In the past congress had set limits on how much money could be given to campaigners. This was challenge sighting a freedom of speech violation on behalf of big businesses. The court ruled in favor of the freedom of speech violation allowing any amount of monetary funding to go towards political runners.

So the young adult was not allowed to display a sign but big corporations should be allowed to invest in political decisions. Can you not see how this is nothing more than a sign of fascism?

The point of government is to protect the "little guy" and not to protect large businesses. We are nothing other than a government of corporate say so. If you got the money, we will rule in your favor.

You don't have any freedoms unless we tell you, you do. Not in any public place, not even in your home. If you pay for it, then we might let you.

In one day, we witness how government has failed to do as the original framers intended it to. The rights of the people are to protect them from the oppression of government.

The recent supreme court ruling that an adult student did not have the freedom to display a banner during an Olympic torch event. The judge stated that he was at a school event so he did not have his freedom of speech right. How silly is that? They teach you in school you have a first amendment right to free speech but you don't in a public school none the less.

The second case which was done on the same day, was for allowing businesses and corporations the ability to pay political campaigners any amount of money they want. In the past congress had set limits on how much money could be given to campaigners. This was challenge sighting a freedom of speech violation on behalf of big businesses. The court ruled in favor of the freedom of speech violation allowing any amount of monetary funding to go towards political runners.

So the young adult was not allowed to display a sign but big corporations should be allowed to invest in political decisions. Can you not see how this is nothing more than a sign of fascism?

The point of government is to protect the "little guy" and not to protect large businesses. We are nothing other than a government of corporate say so. If you got the money, we will rule in your favor.

You don't have any freedoms unless we tell you, you do. Not in any public place, not even in your home. If you pay for it, then we might let you.

And as for a student's right to fly banners... if it's really important to us that students have that freedom... we can ammend the constitution to specify the right in a way that the Supreme Court would be expected to honor.

I think it's good that an issue has to be pretty freaking important to result in a constitutional ammendment.

Isn't that what the framers intended?

I don't think you know much about fascism if you think that schools don't have a right to keep control of what is going on at a school event because that would be a "sign of fascism".

It sounds like the first case you're referring to is Morse v. Frederick -- the so-called "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. But that decision was handed down about two years ago. In any case, the right to free speech under the First Amendment was never thought to mean that a person could say whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted. To my mind, the the Court's decision in the case was very limited and the vote was surprisingly close.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 03:20 PM ----------
It was retried with new ruling. Your argument might be the old argument but this justice never mentions it like this. He sights two reasons being that one it was a school event and second that schools have the right to curb any speech it finds that conflicts with the functioning of learning.

Both of those reasons were exaggerations. The student like I mentioned was not even on school grounds, there was no classes in session so how could it be disrupting the learning process? Then the event was not even a school event it just happened to be outside the school but he was standing across the street. But even if it was on school grounds, why is it that a simple message can not be displayed? It is a slap in the face of everything this country was founded on to rule in this way.

Withholding our freedom of speech right because someone may hold up an offensive sign or one with a conflicting ideology? Deal with it, that's what the purpose of America was supposed to be, not restricting lone voices because they may be seen as dangerous. The analogy may be a bit extreme, but it reminds me of Equilibrium or Fahrenheit 451 or something where "freedom of speech" is held back in case someone with a radical or upsetting view comes along. But don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing our government to that of these totalitarian societies... yetl

As a practical matter, it wouldn't make sense to amend the constitution to specify rights in a way that would be upheld by the Supreme Court. For one thing, the Supreme Court doesn't really agree on the correct interpretation of constitutional rights. And in any case, especially where the first amendment is concerned, the doctrine is so complicated that trying to amend the constitution to reflect Supreme Court precedent would be much too messy.

IThis might not be the most compelling reasoning ever advanced in a Supreme Court decision. In fact, the vote was 4-4, with one Justice narrowly concurring to form a majority. So the Court was even more divided than usual in this case. The holding also applies only to the speech of students in the school context, and only to messages like the one in this case, which run directly contrary to messages the school is attempting to instill in students. It's hardly a frontal assault on principles of free of expression.

Of course freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want. The US has the broadest definitions and protections for free speech of anywhere in the world even to the point of protecting pornographic images and other forms of speech with little political or social redeeming value.

Probably the two worst supreme court decisions in recent memory are
the eminent domain decision allowing the taking of private property to be given to another private entity for the "public good"
and
The decision a few days ago that "corporations" have the same protected free speed and campaign contribution rights as individuals.