It does NOT protect you vis-a-vis your employer, landlord, or any other private racket. Mike G.
________________________________ From: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:04:21 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Blow a Whistle, Go to Jail - For 30 Years
lbo83235
> Well, speech and writing are explicitly protected in the First
> Amendment.
And corporations are natural persons (Santa Clara) and campaign expenditure is protected as the "speech" of same (Citizens United).
^^^^^ CB; I believe you were sort of exclaiming in exasperation when you said we will soon need a license to speak; and I agree with such annoyance at the Florida law. I , too, think corporations being legal persons is outrageous. I wonder if it will be illegal for corporations to take pictures of farms. Given the bill's sponsors , they might except corporations from it.
^^^^
You honestly feel like the first amendment provides you a lot of protection? You got a huge trust fund you haven't disclosed to the rest of us? Or some magical semantic-interpretive wand?
^^^^^^ CB: Now that's a good question. In support of ur point, In the very first First Amendment case, Mr. Justice Holmes famously found an exception to First Amendment protection for socialists propagandizing workers not to go into the armed services for World War I. It was a so-called clear and present danger. I forget what specifically to. Maybe civilization. Actually, it was something of a danger to capitalism. The First Amendment doesn't protect shouting falsely "fire" in a crowded theatre, as he analogized. Then in 1948 the Communist Party's leadership's speech was not given First Amendment protection and they were imprisoned..
But since then , the courts have protected even radical speech. The private sector effectively policed radicals by denying work. So, to be honest, I kind of feel some protection for my speech even from the bourgeois courts today. As I said the private sector , which is not subject to the First Amendment, can handle that censorship. The magic word formula in the lead case is that speech that is incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected. I certainly do not and would not say anything advocating armed struggle. We are for votes only as the peaceful path to socialism in the US.
By the way, this is one reason that constant urgings to non-electoral activism by the left is not "correct". There isn't much non-electoral activity ( that doesn't intend ultimately to impact votes) that can make systemic changes. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk