Below, two chilling excerpt from an article by Haley Sweetland Edwards in the Washington Monthly Magazine online. Read the excerpts, shudder, then read the entire terrifying piece here:
***
"And if industry goes on
to win the war—if they collect a body of First Amendment case law establishing
that corporations’ First Amendment-protected speech cannot reasonably be
fettered by economic regulation—our society will be in a world of hurt. There
will be no corporate transparency whatsoever. No way to enforce workers’
rights. No way to compel companies to protect investors or shareholders. And
all regulations that require corporate disclosure, including most financial
regulations, will cease to exist in any meaningful way."
***
"By claiming
that the government cannot, under the Constitution, compel companies to 'engage
in speech they would not otherwise issue,' NAM is essentially undercutting
nearly alleconomic
regulation. 'If that seems alarmist, it’s not,' wrote University of Tulsa law
professor Tamara Piety, the author of Brandishing the First Amendment. In the legal context, the current
definition of 'speech' is famously fuzzy and could, depending on the situation,
include very nearly everything a company does, from advertising and performing
financial transactions to transferring data and utilizing computer algorithms.
So if NAM’s claim were true, it’s very possible that the government couldn’t
regulate any of those activities. 'If you cannot regulate commercial speech,' Piety
wrote, 'you cannot regulate commerce, period.'”
1 comment:
But we knew this.
We saw it coming when Citizens United was proclaimed law of the land by the bought-and-paid-for Supremos.
And now they are people too.
With all the rights of people.
- Mitters speaks
Post a Comment