WTFO- In this recent case, defeating the Mc Cain/Feingold legislation is a very narrow decision. A corporate group made a movie of Hillary Clinton and wanted to show it on commercial communication channels within a time frame prohibited by the ACT. By my way of thinking, preventing the showing of the corporate movie was not an infringement of that corporations right to free speech. Here is why. I don't think it was illegal for that corporation to have this movie shown in public theaters, or on television or streamed to internet sites. In fact, it is my understanding that this movie was available to the public in these forms. So, the "public" was not denied the opportunity to view this movie if the public so chose.
I am reminded of Michael Moore's movies. These were available (and are still available) to view at anytime by any individual who wishes to see them.
So, how could the corporation even claim that their "First Amendment Rights" were violated? I am not a "respected scholar" such as those esteemed men and women on the United States Supreme Court nor am I an Expert on the Constitution of the United States however, I do believe that the Majority opinion is biased in this case.
I believe that this decision is a fatal blow to my right as an individual to make an informed an educated voting decisions. Now I will have to endure countless hours of corporate advertising in all forms of communication in the last 30days prior to any election. Everyone knows the power of words and pictures. Only the moneyed people (corporations, unions and others) will have the power (money) to get their views in the media and to the masses. Individual rights are now smothered by corporate rights.
I am for a new amendment to our Constitution regarding this situation. How about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment