America’s Frazzled First Amendment (January 13, 2014)

. . .

L1        “The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has devolved a simple formula for First Amendment analysis:  Who is making the statement and what statement is he, she or it making?  A corporation is extended any and all protection that advances its interests and shields it from liability under the guise of the First Amendment.  An individual is extended First Amendment protection only to the extent that his or her speech is acceptable to the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court.”

L2        “With a few exceptions.”

L1        “A few, but very few exceptions.  The oral argument this week at the Supreme Court involving the reasonable and safe distance between protestors and citizens entering an abortion clinic is less about the First Amendment and more about efforts by the right-wing majority to restrict abortion.”

L2        “Restrict abortion by restricting access.”

. . .

L1        “Some bonehead judges shield the fraudulent statements and misrepresentations of rating agencies’ such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch with First Amendment protection.  A fraudulent statement advanced with the intent to deceive is not entitled to any constitutional protection even if it is advanced by a corporation rather than an individual.”

L2        “The next step by some judges is to insulate any statements however deceptive or fraudulent by other specific industries such as the oil and gas, pharmaceutical, and agricultural industries from liability by bestowing First Amendment protection on them.”

. . .

L2        “The O’Bama Administration has maintained the hostile attitude and increased aggressive actions against whistleblowers and those challenging often illegal government shenanigans.  The executive branch contributes to the problem not to the solution.”

L1        “Their dismissive treatment of the press is taken from Tricky Dick’s play book.  The White House is Fort O’Bama.”

. . .

L1        “Congress could address most of these problems with legislation that most courts would honor and enforce.  Legislation including the USA PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 should be reviewed and amended.”

L2        “Seems that all three branches are a threat to the people today.”  

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled https://e-commentary.org/category/first-amendment/ in particular The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007), Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010), Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010), In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011) and At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012); the “e-ssays” at https://e-commentary.org/category/national-defense-authorization-act-fy-2012/ and https://e-commentary.org/category/usa-patriot-act/; and commentary on rating agencies at https://e-commentary.org/category/rating-agencies-2/.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

My Political Ideas                                            Are Too Complex

To Fit On One                                                  Bumper Sticker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: