My Free Speech rights are being abused.

[NashvilleLefty]

If money is Free Speech, then what about those of us who have no money? What about those who yell so loudly with their oney that they drown out the rest of us? Where is the Freedom? where is the equality?

I want to sue the Supreme Court for denying me my Constitutional rights. But how do you sue a Court?

Should I sue the Federal Government? Or should I just sue the SuperPAC's?

Bottom line, my rights to Free Speech are being denied by those who are purposely blocking those rights by an unfair advantage.

[FarLeftFist]

1. The Supreme Court can't be sued. If you're not rich enough to buy tv ads and billboards your

silence will be your consent.

[MADem]

2. I've been making that argument for years!

No cash? We're muzzled!

[NashvilleLefty]

3. Are there any Lawyers here who will

take up this cause? Or at least tell me why not?

[MADem]

5. I dunno. You'd think the ACLU would have run with it... nt

[Nye Bevan]

9. The ACLU supports the Citizens United decision (nt)

[MADem]

11. Isn't that disappointing? There's just no way that I can grasp that logic! nt

[jsmirman]

6. I hope someone can provide a more satisfying answer

but there is not any free speech doctrine that I've come across that includes the right to not be drowned out.

You have always been, on a content-neutral basis, free to speak your mind in a public space (subject, at least now, to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions). You have never, however (as best I know), been granted protection against someone standing up next to you or near you and speaking his or her mind more loudly than you can.

This doesn't strike me as a fruitful line of attack.

The decision itself is horseshit, and needs to be overturned by subsequent judgment or Constitutional amendment. But there was nothing forcing them, in the crucial parts of the decision, to translate corporations into people in every sense (they had already used the corporation=people in certain circumstances, but not in others), or to translate money into speech.

The decision is one of the worst the Court has ever handed down.

[Keso_717]

7. Strange

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Always wondered how equating people with corporations would work. Seems to me that alot of judiciary from laws to sentencing is ultimately based on human emotions like guilt, shame , remorse, repentance.
In my view corporations are inherently amoral. Only form of punishment that works is financial as they exisit only to provide return to shareholders. Can you prosecute a corporation now for murder, manslaughter if their behaviour/products harms humans?
Or looked at another way can persons now get away with murder/manslaughter by paying fines/settlements?
- " Hey, judge I murdered my wife because the fine was cheaper than a divorce.
Almost like a medieval concept of "bloodprice"
Interesting society you are building over there from a legal perspective. Habeas corpus seems also like a concept more an more flaunted in new american legislation

[JFN1]

4. Love it.

Absolutely fantastic question. I'm curious myself. Maybe a 99% class action against Fed gov?

[Nye Bevan]

8. You could post your thoughts on an internet discussion forum

so that they can be viewed by anyone in the world, at no cost to you.

You could share your ideas on Twitter, Facebook etc., again free of charge.

If you want to do TV advertising, on the other hand, you will need to find a bunch of like-minded people who will all contribute to the cost of your ad (let's call these people a "super PAC&quot . If you weren't allowed to do this, only very wealthy individuals would be able to afford this kind of advertising.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. If people could sue courts then every party that failed to prevail would sue

That means the courts would spend more time defending themselves than accomplishing the work they are instituted to perform. What you're asking for is for segregationists, anti-abortionists and opponents of gay civil rights to harass the courts -- and congress. It's called sovereign immunity.

Nye Bevan is correct. You can gather a group of like-minded individuals to pool your personal resources to buy political advertising. Any monies you contribute to that effort would be protected by the corporate laws reaffirmed in the Citizens United case.

Of course TV advertising is not the only venue. Sure, it reaches the most people but that's why it costs so much: it's valuable. Unfortunately stations like MSNBC, CurrentTV and Democracy Now are niche markets. For political junkies they're all well and good but the low-information, easily-entertainment, beauty pageant voters are probably the more sane segment of the population, despite the derision they often gain from us. Anybody (like you and me) that makes something as dirty, manipulative and conniving as politics their main passion ought to have their head examined.