Difference between revisions of "Free Speech"
From MgmtWiki
(→Problem) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Free speech is on of the bill of rights and is believed to be necessary for a functioning free society along with freedom of the press and association. | Free speech is on of the bill of rights and is believed to be necessary for a functioning free society along with freedom of the press and association. | ||
==Problem== | ==Problem== | ||
| − | Other people do not want people to say those nasty things and believe they have the right to stop them. | + | * Other people do not want people to say those nasty things and believe they have the right to stop them for either their own or society's welfare. |
| + | * Are libel laws consistent with free speech? The thin-skinned do not think so. | ||
| + | * Does money have the same rights as speech? Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia in the finding of Citizen's United seems to equate money with speech as established in the 1976 precedent Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional by limiting the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues. Antonin Scalia was one of the most influential voices on the Supreme Court regarding the relationship between money and political speech. As a staunch textualist, he argued that the First Amendment protects not only the speech of individuals but also the ability of all entities—including corporations—to spend money in furtherance of political communication. In his view, money is not merely a tool or a resource; it is an extension of speech itself. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 18:46, 5 May 2025
Full Title or Meme
Some people have nasty things to say and want protection to say them anywhere they like.
Context
Free speech is on of the bill of rights and is believed to be necessary for a functioning free society along with freedom of the press and association.
Problem
- Other people do not want people to say those nasty things and believe they have the right to stop them for either their own or society's welfare.
- Are libel laws consistent with free speech? The thin-skinned do not think so.
- Does money have the same rights as speech? Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia in the finding of Citizen's United seems to equate money with speech as established in the 1976 precedent Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional by limiting the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues. Antonin Scalia was one of the most influential voices on the Supreme Court regarding the relationship between money and political speech. As a staunch textualist, he argued that the First Amendment protects not only the speech of individuals but also the ability of all entities—including corporations—to spend money in furtherance of political communication. In his view, money is not merely a tool or a resource; it is an extension of speech itself.
