Are republican attacks against corporations a blow to 1st amendment?

In less than a year there have now been three major attempts to punish corporations for speaking out against the government. Amazingly, the right is uniquely responsible for these legal manoeuvers. Even more amazingly, republican citizens are cheering this on. What shocks me is how all of these people are willing to throw all their principles out the window because they like the result. Or put another way, it is well worth there giving up what you beleive in to hurt the opposition.
Republicans have fought tooth and nail to allow corporations to enter the political arena, equating money to free speech. From Citizens United allowing corporations unlilited funding to politicians to Mitt Romney equating corporations to people and their right to free speech.
But now that some corporations' speech displeases these same politicians, they dearly want to punish them.
I really don't see how republicans can be applauding this behaviour, especially with what this behaviour implies.
Delta Tax break repeal: so republicans are willing to cause serious financial pain to the largest employer of the state of Georgia because Delta spoke out? How is that not an infringement on 1st ammendment rights? If we have established that corporations are people ans that we allow and encourage them to speak (political donations) how is this not a classbook example of 1st ammendment right being violated? Secondary point: were these tax breaks just pure pork? After all, these breaks were allegedly vital for the georgia economy. The right will hurt a corporation becuase it does not like it's message or maybe this financing was just pork?
MLB rescinding of monopoly exception. Pure retribution. Either there was justification for this monopoly or there wasn't. This exception is 100 years old. Here again republican senators want to punish the MLB for speaking. Either this exception was vital or it wasn't. They have either allowed an illegal monopoly to exist unopposed, or they are willing to hurt a vital part of the economy because MLB spoke out. Once again, how is this not a first ammendment issue.
Lastly, punishing the NBA and MLB for it's ties to china and slave labour. Don't get me wrong. I am all for it. Just curious that the left has been fighting slave labour in china for 40 years now though boycotts, unions, and politicians trying to pass laws with the right defending these corporations and favouring self policing instead. But now that the NBA and MLB have come out in support of BLM the right is trying to punish them for there ties to China (while of course never conserning themeselves from where Trump tat merhandise was made)

Just because you like the results doesn't mean you should throw your principles away. Clearly the right has in a big way here. Curious to hear the right defend this anti 1st amendment behaviour.

I am perfectly happy to get rid of Delta subsidies, I have zero problem with baseball being declared a monopoly, and I am thankful that the right has finally joined the battle in fighting Chinese slave labour. I like the results. But I deplore the reasons. I don't see how republicans can applaud what is being done in their name here.

 

I’m fine with corporations saying whatever they want, and I don’t think they should be punished for it. However, I do think that big corporations are WAY too big. Corporations like the tech giants Facebook, apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, and other big ones like Pepsi, Coca Cola, etc, need to be broken up big time. Monopolies/oligopolies are far too powerful and influential in this country.

 

I’m surprised he didn’t mention that the GOP was not opposing the Union organizing efforts by Amazon employees in Alabama a right to work state. The original op writer also didn’t recognize the Transition of the GOP under Trump from an establishment elite corporatist party to a multiracial working and middle class coalition party.

 

That’s because it didn’t happen. Dirty Donnie only represents his own financial interests <COMMENTS EDITED>

 

Yeah in a way. But freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences so who knows for sure?

 

Sometimes it just amazes me how successfully democrats hide their actual intentions. Slave labor in developing countries has been the bread and butter of corporations run by democrats to the detriment of those nations. When Apple, Nike, et al run their sweat shops in China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc, they are simply exercising their deeply held belief that they are entitled to be the masters of other's misery. And when, finally folks speak out about how immoral some of these companies are, how ridiculous folks like the NBA, MLB etc have become, it just demonstrates how actively the left will attempt to come up with any accuse to attack folks who point it out.

Democrats seem to enjoy parading their miserables in front of us. Biden and his child factories on the Texas, AZ boarders. Apple kids...

But gosh, when you point it out, it suddenly becomes an indictment of political speech by corporations, an attack on the 1rst amendment. You know, that thing that democrats are so actively suppressing these days? And if you point it out, well, you're a national socialist racist these days. Democrats are pretty polarizing these days. Perhaps this will be the moment folks finally recognize them for what they are. Immoral. Locusts. The plague on all of our houses.

 

Well that is a different example, as it is not part of the free speech argument I was making (ie republican politicians punishing corporations whose speech they did not like). However it gels perfectly with the rank hypocrisy of the right: republicans have been very anti union and pro "right to work" laws. And now they support the unionizing of Amazon? Look no further than republicans once again throwing their principles out the window so that they can hurt Bezos who opposed Trump and whose newspaper, the WaPo opposes Trump. Senator Rubio was clear "Here's my standard: When the conflict is between working Americans and a company whose leadership has decided to wage culture war against working-class values, the choice is easy, I support the workers. And that's why I stand with those at Amazon's Bessemer warehouse today"
So I guess you were right, Republicans want to punish Amazon because they refused to cary some anti gay books. They just turned around 180 on unions to punish them for not carrying the books they want. Amazing!
Unions endorsed Biden over Trump around 30 to 1 in terms of membership.
One of the reasons the republicans are anti union....until they decided last month not to be for political vengeance.
No principles whatsoever anymore

 

What do you think of social media companies that are now banning journalists for information that they concede is factually true?



Here is what got her banned. All of the information is admitted to be true by Patreon but they banned her because they thought the information would harm the acceptance rate. Basically we have a bunch of billionaire globalist elite EUGENICISTS forcing a vaccine on the entire globe on an annual basis. The Covid shot is going to be the flu shot. Read her article, it is what real journalism looks like and it is being murdered by corporations at the behest of the Democratic Party. It is speaking truth to power and paying the price. The left is fascists all the way down.

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/1...azeneca-vaccine-tied-to-uk-eugenics-movement/

 

I suggest you educate yourself on the fight against slave labour waged in the united states.
I am delighted that the right has finally woken up to it 40 years after it began, and clearly doing it mostly for political show and retribution, but I am very glad that they have joined the fray.

 

I think that your point has absolutely zero to do with this conversation which is specifically about elected officials punishing corporations for their speech. A position that should be anathema to all republicans, and yet that they are now embrasing. Several examples have been cited. Points and counterpoints can be made. Bringing up private companies limiting speech (please note that that is not a 1st ammendment issue at all) is irrelevant.
I don't know the specifics of this story, but in general I prefer that people get to make their point without being punished. But that these are also private companies that can do whatever they want.
I could tell you what I truly think of your argument, but that would get me banned here. A private company would be banning me. This is not a 1st ammendment issue, and it is not politicians doing this. I wouldn't like it, but would accept it

 

Are republican attacks against corporations a blow to 1st amendment?

Of course not. It is the opposite. Freedom of speech is designed to protect all speech, not just the speech you like. It does not provide protection from the consequences of what one says. You should probably think of the push-back as a political debate.

 

It was a free speech issue. Remember it was Amazon that took Parler off line for over a month. They are part of big tech social media. You didn’t even cover that the GOP is the party now of small independent business, the farmer and rancher, and the working and middle class and no longer beholden to the establishment elite corporatocracy it was carrying water for from 1992-2015.

 

OMG! NO! the first amendment (and once again let's remember that is the subject of this thread) deals UNIQUELY with the government punishing people for expressing themselves. Let me quote it for you "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Private enterprises can do pretty much whatever they want in terms of limiting your speech. Amazon is a private company that can cut off Parler if it wants to and it's contract allows it. Political Forum can suspend accounts if they find that they broke their terms of service. A business can stop using my services because they do not like what I have to say. I can cut my son's allowance because he called me a "doodoohead". my friends can stop seeing me because I made an innapropriate comment.
The one and only thing that free speech as defined by the constitution allows is that the government can not pass laws to punish you because they don't like what you said. That is the ONLY thing that free speech is about.
I can call Ted Cruz a dikkhead. This doesn't mean that my neighbour can't shun me, this doesn't mean that my clients can't fire me, this doesn't mean that my instagram followers can't call me out on it, this doesn't mean that facebook can't ban me, this doesn't mean that Patreon as stated above can't drop me. This doesn't mean that I won't face retribution a million ways
The ONLY thing that the 1st amendment guarantees. Take it to the bank, absolutley (except for a very very few narrow exceptions) is that the GOVERNMENT constitutionally is not allowed to pass laws to punish me for calling Ted Cruz a dikkead.
Right now, these republicans are passing laws (even if it is to rescind old laws) to punish people for speaking out.

 

Nothing in the 1st Amendment prohibits a state from withdrawing a privilege granted by said state, should the recipient of said privilege criticize said state.

 

Some of us regard free speech as an inalienable right, not a gift granted by the Mother State.

 

This has... what... to do with what I said?

 

How many workers are going to get laid off or have hours reduced because Republicans got their feelings hurt?

 

Look at you, defending big business.

 

And maybe I should seed an article about what Clarence Thomas said today about big tech social media and the first amendment if no one else has yet.

 

I'm defending the workers who have no control over what their company says.

 

I love it when people all of a sudden start speaking pseudo legalese when discussing law. In general it shows a complete lack of knowledge about said laws.
Saying something that sounds kind of fairish and couching it in kinda legal jargon does not make it so.
First of all "withdrawing a privilege" is in fact passing a law (famously, the 18th amendment of the constitution is not 'withdrawn', rather the 21st amendment revokes it. The 21st amendment was voted upon, it was a law passed getting rid of a previous law) . So you are now on really shaky grounds in regards to the constitution.
But more importatntly, to give a real life example: driving. Those on the right keep on insisting that driving is a priviledge not a right when they argue against gun control (ie the reason that you can have people jump through hoops to get a drivers liscence is because that is a privilege, while owning a gun is a right enumerated in the constitution).

So you actually beleive that a state can constitutionally revoke your driver's licence if you criticize it?
Clearly you hadn't really thought this thing through if you beleive that

 

I never supported special tax deductions for some but not others. I always thought it opened the door for corruption. Also, it's unequal protection under the law.

Maybe it took this, situation, for them to realize this. Maybe not, and they will just go right back to it. Idk

 

Property is a constitutional right, including what you choose to do with that property.

 

Money is speech. You think you can buy platforms for free? Corporations are just people.

The law included incarceration for violation, do you think they were going to jail the corporate logo? No, this unconstitutional act intended to jail PEOPLE for speaking out during a campaign season. Why do you want to jail people for speaking out during the campaign season?

And caused them to reflect on exactly why do these slanderous lying bastards get special treatment from Congress? A question that should have been asked long ago, but, better late than never. No one can think of a good reason. You certainly haven't come up with any.

Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption is a quirk of history, nothing else. In 1915 Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was a Federal Judge. Landis heard the case and then sat on the decision for over a year in the hopes that the American, National and Federal League owners would work something out. The suit eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1922, where, in a unanimous decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. ruled that professional baseball was not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because MLB was not engaged in “interstate commerce.” So baseball’s antitrust exemption is the result of a court ruling, not legislation. And in what world is MLB “not engaged in interstate commerce”? And, Judge Landis later became MLB commissioner!

While the Supreme Court is the source of baseball’s antitrust exemption, the courts have consistently ruled that Congress is the entity with the power to limit baseball’s antitrust exemption. It's completely ridiculous that this exclusive club of millionaires and billionaires continues to enjoy such exclusive treatment. Congress has many times thought about bring them into compliance with the rest of the US.

They are slanderous liars getting special treatment from Congress. Even you aren't coming up with arguments why these slanderous liars should continue to receive special treatment. I can't think of any reasons.

Their CEO lied about and slandered the very GA legislature that has legislative authority over this special tax treatment. Their CEO lied about and slandered the very Governor who will be responsible for signing into law and end of this special tax treatment should the GA Senate pass the end of the exemption that the GA House already passed. Perhaps this lying slanderous CEO should apologized for lying and retract his false slander.

No. He's free to lie about and slander the Legislature and the Governor and they are free to remove Delta's special tax treatment and tax them just like everyone else.

Essentially.

They were probably vital at one time when they were encouraging Delta to base in Atlanta and build their facilities there, but, that's all been completed and now they are openly lying about and slandering the Legislature and the Governor, so clearly, the relationship has changed.

They'll treat them just like everyone else. If they find that "painful" well, I guess that sucks. Lying about and slandering folks you are depending on for favors can be painful, I guess, but, it was probably painful for them to hear Delta lying about and slandering them.

Why do we owe these slandering liars an antitrust exemption that we give no one else?

There wasn't. The judge that heard the original case that granted the strange exception to MLB, later became the MLB commissioner!

So what?

A couple years ago Sanders wanted to end their exemption. Congress never granted this exemption, it was granted by the Court in a decision that made no sense then, and makes no sense now. The Courts have always held that Congress could legislate this if they wished, and every time it looks like there has finally been a triggering event, it dies down and doesn't happen. I personally suspect that they spread some of that money they get from the antitrust exemption all over over Congress until the urge passes. But open lies and slander, they may have finally gone too far. Pigs get Fed, Hogs get Slaughtered, maybe they should have been satisfied with just being pigs.

They are getting away with that too. NIKE, several Media organizations that own News organizations all joined forces to stop the bill that would require all goods sold on American Markets to not be slave produced, and they stopped it.

Sure you are.

The US Left hasn't. They are in bed with them. Billions in Chinese Cash flows to Leftwing Universities, Leftwing Think Tanks and Left Wing Politicians.

Good. We have agreement.

It is a monopoly.

Don't applaud yet. They still have a monopoly. Delta is still expanding in China's slave state. MLB is still real cozy with the Lying Outlaw Slavers of Beijing, no boycotts there! And we still have slave produced goods on US Markets.

A list of 80 companies to keep an eye on at the link.

https://www.americanmajority.org/blog-2/80-companies-are-benefiting-off-of-slave-labor-in-china/

 

Just so that everyone is aware of the facts here is the statement full of 'lies' and 'slander' for which the Georgia senators are repealing a 35 million dollar tax break (jet fuel does not get taxed at 4 percent like regular gas).

Most telling is this statement by a republican local politician

Republican State House Speaker Dave Ralston, however, vowed to press the issue, telling reporters that Delta shouldn’t “bite the hand” that feeds it

So, you guys are really on board with this? And I guess republicans now think that Obama and Biden were right: you didn't build this business. After all it is the politicians that are the hand that feeds these businesses.
You guys really hate free speech don't you