Blog Comments

There are limits on corporate speech, but its based on the type of speech at issue or the type of regulation, not the class of speaker. Commercial speech (such as advertisements) is analyzed under a different standard, where false/misleading commercial speech is given almost no protection, and non-misleading commercial speech is given fairly high protection (a form of what's called intermediate scrutiny, where the regulation must be narrowly tailored and based on an important government interest). This is quite different from political speech, where even false/misleading speech is given the highest protection.

I'm sure commercial speech can be limited by state codes in content-neutral manners, such as restrictions over where they can advertise. But the state law could not "limit First Amendment protections," because the First Amendment applies to the states. State law that conflicts with the Constitution is equally impermissible as contrary federal law.

"It is not the corporate structure of media companies that makes them deserving of constitutional protection. It is their function — the vital role that the press plays in American democracy — that sets them apart."



This is why I like this case so much: because anti-corporate sentiment is so woefully deprived of the facts whenever it tries to discuss it. Personally, I think there's something disturbing (and dangerous) about the media trying to delude the rest of the public into thinking the press is entitled to some kind of special sanctuary of constitutional protection.

Still, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that some justifiable law somewhere could limit first amendment protection for corporations. Corporations don't get all the rights of citizens. The fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination is one example.

The problem for me is the attempt to draw a line separating corporations based on whether or not they have a "media function." That's just not a tenable standard.

However, corporations are creatures of state law, so while I could see how a Federal law operating within the contours of the first amendment failed to regulate corporate speech, I might be persuaded that a state legislature could appropriately restrict their speech rights somewhere within its corporate code.

That's just my rambling, though

... u guys made my day

I probably would too if I shaved my legs.

I look damn good in a dress imo.

Why can women wear pants but men can't wear dresses? smurfing sexism, that. We need to start up the masculunist movement.

shouldnt she, as a women, be happy that feminism happened?
equal rights..
the right to go to school..
the right to get a job!!
rights to vote

and ofcourse the every day things:
that you can be independent financial!
and a woman should not wear pants? ಠ_ಠ i will not put on a dress. i dnt like them

Not every woman will be satisfied with a life cleaning the house and taking care of baby's :/

Oh no, I get that the author is extremely misogynistic.

They're just making themselves look bad is all

@ fire_of_avalon
wut??

And that's perfectly fine and your choice. It's only not fine here because the author is telling other women how to behave, and making ridiculous and sexist generalizations about both sexes.

I'm probably the only person I know who would be fine in a subservient housewife role.

Shaibana, even if you're wrong you don't tel Raistlin you're sorry. All goes straight to his head.

Also what kind of MRA bulltrout have you been about lately?

*sigh* sometimes i just hate myself :/
im always half-ish reading it that i did not see the ''If you think the above is just too ridiculous for anyone to actually say seriously, I suggest you click on this link.


Sorry raistlin ^^

Shaibana: Uh, you might want to reread this blog entry. xD Take note of the use of words "ridiculous" and "sexist bulltrout" and "vomit."

Fynn: This was written by a woman.

yeah raistlin u suck

marriage and baby's are certainly not on my list :/
so what you want is a submissif know-nothing blond bimbo?
u wanna go back to the medieval times?
u just dont like it that you (men) lost some sense of power

honestly raistlin, you lost some respect i had for you
i hope nxt time you return to earth as a (male) Hyena :P than you will be shown what real feminism is

smurfing fox news doesn't even derserve to be in a sentece with proper capitalized or punctuation and syntax

This just... I don't even... I really thought people were better than this, but NO, these "manly men" still feel the urge to stand on a higher ground and call it "love". This sense of inequality drive me nuts! It makes me really ashamed of being a man...

Way to say that men are completely incapable of adapting while women are basically a brand new species now. These people dude.

Holy trout! I just noticed that things fall downwards as well!