Gary Johnson Libertarian Nominee

[sailor]

Actually, I was talking about books that are banned for fraudulent claims, plus books that contain classified information.

So, that is one book (per Wikipedia) for fraudulent claims. I didn't look thru at the basis for that but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the equivalent of slander or libel, or practicing law, badly, without a license.

Classified information is in some ways not all that different than copyright. The author used material that was not their to use. That the material belongs to the govt, which is normally public domain, is one part of it. The other is that the person using it had to violate their contract with the govt to get access, or had gotten somebody else to violate their agreement about classified info.

Still, can you post a specific citation for a book that has actually been banned for classified information? Specifically one where the author had not been bound by some sort of non-disclosure agreement from before they started to write it?

[Skyth]

No examples needed. You already found one The point was that the government (and not just on a Federal level) legally has the ability to ban the publishing of a book and/or punish the publisher. (Similar to how freedom of speech isn't absolute).

Similar to how a church can be penalized if it engages in political speech.

Granted, I don't think that the actual problem is corporate personhood but rather that more money buys more speech (And more effective speech) and that unduly influences government.

Similar to bribery being legal if it's a 'campaign contribution'. That is another problem that corporate personhood is a scapegoat for.

[Skyth]

And it distinctly separates the assets of the company from the assets of its owners, which means that, for example, if the business goes bankrupt the owners aren't at risk of losing their life savings. It's not like that's a trivial or useless function.

That could be a plus or a minus depending on the situation. Should the CEO of a corporation be held liable for decisions that they make? Especially when that decision ends up hurting someone? For instance, the company goes bankrupt because of fines from willfully polluting and compromising worker safety.

Then you have CEO's of failing corporations (Often the person who set up the corporation) giving themselves fat bonuses at the expense of the other people who invested in the company.

But when done in good faith to set up a company, it is a good thing for the reason you sited.

[sailor]

No examples needed. You already found one The point was that the government (and not just on a Federal level) legally has the ability to ban the publishing of a book and/or punish the publisher. (Similar to how freedom of speech isn't absolute).

Similar to how a church can be penalized if it engages in political speech.

Granted, I don't think that the actual problem is corporate personhood but rather that more money buys more speech (And more effective speech) and that unduly influences government.

Similar to bribery being legal if it's a 'campaign contribution'. That is another problem that corporate personhood is a scapegoat for.

Here is the link to the law under which the book was banned. It is a Federal consumer protection / anti-fraud act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7408


Wikipedia link for book in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_S..._Federal_Mafia (haven't had time to read the article yet).

More money = more speech has always existed. It took money to publish pamphlets, posters etc.

Citizen's United being the poster boy for money in politics and corporate personhood is showing a gross ignorance of the case. The movie the Federal Election Commission tried to ban from being shown could have been made by a partnership (similar to say your mom & pop plumbing company) rather than a not for profit corporation (similar to say the Sierra Club). They might have even been able to make the actual movie for less than the donation limit of a dozen people. (Getting it distributed in mass might cost a lot more, one reason CU was going to charge for people to see it).



Money in politics was decided before 2004, long before CU was even an idea.

Of course the poster boy for Federal funding of elections would be McCain vs Obama. McCain took Federal funds which limited his fund raising. Obama didn't take Federal money and raised a whole lot more money. Not a good idea though probably to speak to loudly about money buying the race.

[mandrina]

Here is the link to the law under which the book was banned. It is a Federal consumer protection / anti-fraud act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7408


Wikipedia link for book in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_S..._Federal_Mafia (haven't had time to read the article yet).

More money = more speech has always existed. It took money to publish pamphlets, posters etc.

Citizen's United being the poster boy for money in politics and corporate personhood is showing a gross ignorance of the case. The movie the Federal Election Commission tried to ban from being shown could have been made by a partnership (similar to say your mom & pop plumbing company) rather than a not for profit corporation (similar to say the Sierra Club). They might have even been able to make the actual movie for less than the donation limit of a dozen people. (Getting it distributed in mass might cost a lot more, one reason CU was going to charge for people to see it).

Money in politics was decided before 2004, long before CU was even an idea.

Of course the poster boy for Federal funding of elections would be McCain vs Obama. McCain took Federal funds which limited his fund raising. Obama didn't take Federal money and raised a whole lot more money. Not a good idea though probably to speak to loudly about money buying the race.

there's always been a problem balancing the advantage a well known person like McCain had over Obama vs the advantage that money can bring. Would McCain have been able to raise as much money as Obama if he hadn't taken federal funds, and had raised his own? Would he have raised as much from the little donors? Or the big donors (given that as far as I know, Obama might still have outstripped him left and right with both sizes of donors, or not)? If Obama hadn't raised his own money, might he have not had the name recognition that McCain had at the time of the primary? In this case, it's not necessarily that money bought the race, maybe money evened out the name recognition so that the best man won. Or maybe not.

[Owl]

That could be a plus or a minus depending on the situation. Should the CEO of a corporation be held liable for decisions that they make? Especially when that decision ends up hurting someone? For instance, the company goes bankrupt because of fines from willfully polluting and compromising worker safety.

Then you have CEO's of failing corporations (Often the person who set up the corporation) giving themselves fat bonuses at the expense of the other people who invested in the company.

But when done in good faith to set up a company, it is a good thing for the reason you sited.

Remember how the Enron execs went on trial? Yes, they can get in trouble. It becomes a court decision.

[sailor]

Here is the link to the law under which the book was banned. It is a Federal consumer protection / anti-fraud act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7408


Wikipedia link for book in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_S..._Federal_Mafia (haven't had time to read the article yet).

OK, had a chance to read the Wikipedia article on the book.

The Wikipedia page on banned books is being disingenuous. Per the Wikipedia page about the the people who wrote the book, they are banned from selling it. You or I could theoretically sell it, and the couple is currently giving the book away for free via their web site.

Presumably the ban on sales by them turns it from a 1st amendment case to fraud / commerce clause case.

More later. Spent most of coffee break looking for a washing machine over what is effectively a multi person shared dial up connection.

[drekfletch]

You could always get rid of corporate personhood

Personally, I'd rather get rid of incorporation as a legal state of existence.

Points granted. Faulty logic on my part.

I fail to see how corporate personhood is anything but an extension of the personhood of all the involved people. I don't agree with current restrictions on political actions of individuals. I disagree that a corporation, given the consensus of involved people, cannot do with it's resources as it wishes. Providing it does not infringe on the rights of any particular group.

The biggest thing is that currently, the more money you have, the more 'rights' you have as far as speach is concerned.

I'll grant this may be true in today's world of red tape. This doesn't, however, point to a problem with money. It points to a problem with the red tape. Money shouldn't grant you more rights. It does, however, grant you access to more venues for expression of free speech. Which a different discussion.

[sailor]

there's always been a problem balancing the advantage a well known person like McCain had over Obama vs the advantage that money can bring. Would McCain have been able to raise as much money as Obama if he hadn't taken federal funds, and had raised his own? Would he have raised as much from the little donors? Or the big donors (given that as far as I know, Obama might still have outstripped him left and right with both sizes of donors, or not)? If Obama hadn't raised his own money, might he have not had the name recognition that McCain had at the time of the primary? In this case, it's not necessarily that money bought the race, maybe money evened out the name recognition so that the best man won. Or maybe not.

There is a reason Obama is refered to as President Goldman-Sachs. He got a ton of money from big Wall St types in 2008.

He also got a ton of money from credit card transactions, but that is still controversial. His campaign then, and again now, has turned off credit card verification.

[MadZealot]

There is a reason Obama is refered to as President Goldman-Sachs. He got a ton of money from big Wall St types in 2008.

He also got a ton of money from credit card transactions, but that is still controversial. His campaign then, and again now, has turned off credit card verification.

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
- Patrick Henry