Should only "natural persons" and the press have First Amendment rights?

[Nye Bevan]

Many DUers have suggested that constitutional rights should be reserved for "natural persons". And there is a group called "move to amend" which takes this view. But read this, bearing in mind that "MoveOn.org" is not a "natural person":

MoveOn.org won't be forced to take down a Baton Rouge-area billboard critical of Bobby Jindal's decision to forgo Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, a federal judge ruled Monday (April 7).

The suit was filed last month by Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, who said the national liberal organization improperly used his office's trade and tourism branding in its satirical billboard posted just outside of the state capital. But U.S. District Court Judge Shelly Dick disagreed Monday, siding with MoveOn.org in stating the group's free speech rights trumped the state's case.

"The State has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to curtail MoveOn.org's political speech in favor of protecting of the State's service mark," Dick said in her ruling. She added "irreparable injury" would not be caused to Louisiana's tourism campaign if the ad remained in place.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/moveon_louisiana_jindal_lawsui_ruling.html

3 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, only "natural persons" and the press, and not artificial entities such as MoveOn.org, should have First Amendment rights.
	1 (33%)
	No. I disagree that First Amendment rights should only be for "natural persons" and the press.
	2 (67%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Xipe Totec]

1. There are many options between those two extremes.

There I go again; talking like a Liberal.

[TDale313]

4. +1

[Ohio Joe]

2. Corporations Are People, My Friend

[beevul]

3. Thats the wrong way to look at it IMO.

The first amendment forbids government from certain actions.

It specifies neither the time, the place, nor the people to which there are exceptions.

[genwah]

5. Hey, what about us "unnatural persons"?

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Do we alert just for "funzies" these days? Really?

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service



On Tue Apr 8, 2014, 03:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Should only "natural persons" and the press have First Amendment rights?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024795641

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Shilling for corporate personhood is not a democratic value.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 8, 2014, 03:39 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the OP could be worded a little more clearly; but, it's not hurtful or offensive.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like this poster but isn't this a debate?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Thanks! (but juror #6 has made me a little sad)

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. I wasn't #6. Like most, I didn't comment, because I thought the alert was ridiculous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. That's the way juries work, sadly.

Use the jury blacklist as much as possible.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. i think a bigger issue is whether money=speech

i really don't understand that

[Octafish]

8. There's a reason The Press is the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution.

Democracy demands it and the Republic requires it.

[BainsBane]

9. I've not seen the threads on this debate

and I did not see the OP as "shilling for corporate personhood," as the alerter suggested. The idea, however, that groups like MoveOn should be deprived of First Amendment rights strikes me as pernicious. Wouldn't that also apply to unions and community groups?
Also what about foreign nationals living in the US? I believe existing law extends constitutional protections to them as well. Are people here arguing they should be deprived of constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees habeas corpus?

[onenote]

10. How does one define "the press"?

Everyone would agree a newspaper is the "press." What about a book? A radio broadcast? A television broadcast? Content delivered via satellite? Content delivered over the Internet? Is a newspaper delivered over the Internet still the press? What about a movie? What distinguishes content delivered in paper form from press/non-press? Is a comic book the "press"? Some comic books but not others? Who decides and what is the standard?

[closeupready]

11. I'm not sure. I think corporations should have restrictions - for example, honesty

or truth-in-advertising. Natural persons should have the fewest restrictions on their speech as possible.

So I'd have to think a bit and entertain arguments prior to making a decision.

[LanternWaste]

13. I think unnatural persons should have equal access to the same imaginary constructs as the rest of u

I think unnatural persons should have equal access to the same imaginary constructs as the rest of us...

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. For that matter, Democratic Underground LLC is not a natural person.

This is a good question.

[dilby]

17. The First Amendment should also cover Collectives of People

When you have more than one person who are a collective their voice should be heard and they should not be quieted. I fear that having it only cover an individual or press will be used to destroy unions.