Trump wants America to be like England, "where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong"

well you can’t yell “movie!” in a crowded firehouse.


That sniff must be a tell. It’s like he does it when even he isn’t buying his own shit.

Or maybe it’s a smug sniff.


first, no one has benefited from being able to spew whatever vile things come into their tiny brain more then trump has.

second, he has a right to say whatever idiotic idea he comes up with, including gutting the first amendment, that is one of the protections the first amendment allows him.


Hillary Clinton also doesn’t like the First Amendment, which is why she’s proposing an amendment to overturn Citizens United. You can make libertarian arguments in favor of restricting corporate speech (because a corporation is a favor the state’s doing for its owners, so the state could put strings on the favor), but there’s no way for the courts to draw a bright line between Michael Moore’s movie about the Evil Bush Family and CU’s movie about Evil Hillary Clinton, or between both of those moviemakers and other media corporations, including Fox and MSNBC, which have editorial content as well as (ahem) “fair and balanced” reporting.

When somebody’s trying to censor porn on the Internet, they’ll tell you that the First Amendment is about protecting political speech. But when they’re trying to censor political speech, they’ll tell you that elections are way too important to let just anybody say things about them.


Corporations shouldn’t be treated the same as people.


That’s what the mainstream does: in making use of fringe characters, the mainstream sands down their unacceptable aspects, to make them palatable to a broad audience. But it keeps the receipts, for later.

Which is to say that everyone in publishing and journalism knew Irving was full of shit almost from the beginning. But that’s not how you sell provocative stories about Hitler, or write profiles about The New Face Of Jazz.

But then Lipstadt really looked at Irving’s work, pointed out how he was distorting the evidence, and that’s when everything fell apart.[/quote]

Right. There’s a long process that leads to this, though. To maintain his position, he had to work the True Believers harder. This makes the mainstream suspicious. So he had to work the True Believers even harder–attending rallies and such–all the while insisting to the mainstream that he was not himself a True Believer. This created a mainstream interest in the receipts, but also a dissonance between Irving’s brand and his reputation. The proverbial lawsuit is the final explosive attempt to reconcile all this after the proverbial Lipstadt comes along and collapses your context.

The more you think about it, the more it IS like these alt right characters on twitter. But it happened over 20 years instead of what, 20 months.


I too, hate the Daily Mail.


Who doesn’t?


We prefer ‘Mud Island’, or at least I do.

1 Like

This whole “Bill of Rights” thing is redundant anyway.
Go full-out on your 2nd Amendment, and you won’t even need a 1st Amendment.


Oh c’mon! Why do you have to coddle the Trumpster like that? Believe me, he wouldn’t coddle you. No. He wouldn’t coddle you.

Unless we get to incarcerate (Suspend corporate operations for a given amount of time. No production, no trade, no earnings.) them when they act badly, or even subject them to capital punishment (Dissolve the corporation, disband the board, sell off assets, terminate all employees) when warranted.


As Robert Reich put it:

I’ll Believe Corporations Are People When Texas Executes One


“If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon.”

Jonathan Aitken, disgraced former MP

Sometimes the system works.


Corporations shouldn’t be treated the same as people.

In many cases that’s true. But here we’re talking just one specific way. One of the court’s justifications for it’s ruling was that political speech is just speech by a group of people.

1 Like

You forgot perjurer and convicted criminal.


No, no, silly, they only get to be treated as people when it’s in their favor…


Except that the group of people in corporations aren’t equally having a voice within the entity itself. The board and CEO have more sway over the political contributions they make than the workers (generally speaking). it also means that someone who is probably already extremely rich and political connected (again, the board and CEO) get their own voices as private citizens and their voices as the public faces of corporations.


Hey. Stop that.


Corporations are people the same way Soylent Green is people. That is, people are ground up and used for the benefit of someone else.