Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Obama has destroyed America so thoroughly that California lawmakers propose the first Constitutional Convention since 1787   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Citizens United, California State Senate, U.S. Constitution, joint resolutions  
•       •       •

4316 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:38 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-24 04:59:47 PM  

whidbey: law


RULING. I know that's going to bring out the Sharks of Pedanticry
 
2014-06-24 05:01:55 PM  

whidbey: Sharks of Pedanticry


Lol
 
2014-06-24 05:02:01 PM  

whidbey: Fun fact: I signed the petition to repeal it. So should you.


Nah, I like my first amendment rights, thanks.  I spend most of my days writing documents to defend the same rights for other people, so it would be kinda silly to support gutting them in my off hours.
 
2014-06-24 05:02:39 PM  

whidbey: RULING. I know that's going to bring out the Sharks of Pedanticry


+1
 
2014-06-24 05:03:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: Fun fact: I signed the petition to repeal it. So should you.

Nah, I like my first amendment rights, thanks.  I spend most of my days writing documents to defend the same rights for other people, so it would be kinda silly to support gutting them in my off hours.


Unless you're willing to allow for an equal protection under the law, then you what really mean is

"nah, I want corporations to have more rights than the average citizen."
 
2014-06-24 05:04:26 PM  

dr_blasto: Ooh, almost forgot.

Limit SCOTUS "lifetime" appointments to periods of no more than 20 years. No re-appointment unless to Chief, possibly.


So one 2-term President should, on average, pick 44% of the court?

If you're going to fiddle with it, go to 11 justices on rolling 2-year terms.
 
2014-06-24 05:05:11 PM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: RULING. I know that's going to bring out the Sharks of Pedanticry

+1


Why thank you.

OK, then how about we agree with the point made earlier, that if we eliminate corporate personhood, then CU is irrelevant?
 
2014-06-24 05:05:26 PM  
Dear California Senate,

While is is an admirable goal, and I completely support the thinking behind it, your time might be better spent fixing our state constitution first.

Thank you,
Holfax - CA resident and voter
 
2014-06-24 05:07:39 PM  

BMFPitt: dr_blasto: Ooh, almost forgot.

Limit SCOTUS "lifetime" appointments to periods of no more than 20 years. No re-appointment unless to Chief, possibly.

So one 2-term President should, on average, pick 44% of the court?

If you're going to fiddle with it, go to 11 justices on rolling 2-year terms.


Nope. I expect them to use significant experience gained on the court.

I'm OK with one 2-term president appointing big chunks, even if he's a clown like Reagan.
 
2014-06-24 05:08:38 PM  
Well, while were having this constitutional convention anyway, why not expand the scope a bit.
Here'd s few to he the ball rolling.

Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress -- Total 12 years
--Power corrupts -- Absolute power corrupts alsolutly

Amendment to Establish Limits for Supreme Court Justices -- Total 12 years
--No fricken reason these people need to stick around for until they're 112 years old and sleeping through hearings.

Amendment to balance the budget.
--I do it, so why not the government.

Admenment to stop the power grab Obama is currently engaged in.
--Provide a means to have immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to insure the President abides by the law as written, not how he thinks it shoud be.
 
2014-06-24 05:08:58 PM  

BMFPitt: dr_blasto: Ooh, almost forgot.

Limit SCOTUS "lifetime" appointments to periods of no more than 20 years. No re-appointment unless to Chief, possibly.

So one 2-term President should, on average, pick 44% of the court?

If you're going to fiddle with it, go to 11 justices on rolling 2-year terms.


Why shouldn't they? It makes no sense to me that Nixon, who was president for five years, was able to name four Justices to the court while Jimmy Carter, who was president for four years, named nobody to the court.
 
2014-06-24 05:09:21 PM  

whidbey: Unless you're willing to allow for an equal protection under the law, then you what really mean is


You are confusing equal protection under the law and unequal ability to use a right protected under the law.

Guess what, sometimes the allocation of resources isn't fair.  I would like it to be more so.  But i dont think the way to address the problem is to ratchet back everyone's rights.

I would much rather spread around the resources. 

Some people are prettier than others or more eloquent - they dont "have more free speech," but you better believe that when they use their rights they definitely get more oomph.  This like complaining that a law that allows everyone to run on a municipal track is unfair because many of the runners are faster than you and thus they "get more running."

Instead of attempting to impose a low speed limit on the track so everyone is equal, perhaps we could work to make everyone faster?
 
2014-06-24 05:10:20 PM  

whidbey: Teiritzamna: whidbey: RULING. I know that's going to bring out the Sharks of Pedanticry

+1

Why thank you.

OK, then how about we agree with the point made earlier, that if we eliminate corporate personhood, then CU is irrelevant?


Mandating public records and openess for all issue organizations will help too. We allow all kinds of shiat to hide today under "social welfare" PACs being allowed to keep donors secret. fark that; make them 100% open.

If you throw in abolition of EC, ranked voting and vote by mail, those corporate dollars become background noise.
 
2014-06-24 05:11:46 PM  

whidbey: OK, then how about we agree with the point made earlier, that if we eliminate corporate personhood, then CU is irrelevant?


Not really because, as noted, (1) the ruling doesn't really rest on Corporate personhood, but upon the aggregation of individual rights and (2) it wouldnt addess the fact that billionaires are still out there.  Trust me the Adlesons and Kochs of the world would love the corporate prongs of CU to be lopped off, because grass roots super pacs and other such groups are the only way the 99% can actually band together to take them on.
 
2014-06-24 05:11:57 PM  

dr_blasto: BMFPitt: dr_blasto: Ooh, almost forgot.

Limit SCOTUS "lifetime" appointments to periods of no more than 20 years. No re-appointment unless to Chief, possibly.

So one 2-term President should, on average, pick 44% of the court?

If you're going to fiddle with it, go to 11 justices on rolling 2-year terms.

Nope. I expect them to use significant experience gained on the court.

I'm OK with one 2-term president appointing big chunks, even if he's a clown like Reagan.


I probably wrote that a bit ambiguously. One justice would serve 22 years, with a staggered appointment/retirement every 2 years.
 
2014-06-24 05:12:27 PM  

dr_blasto: Mandating public records and openess for all issue organizations will help too. We allow all kinds of shiat to hide today under "social welfare" PACs being allowed to keep donors secret. fark that; make them 100% open.


100% agreed
 
2014-06-24 05:14:18 PM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: Unless you're willing to allow for an equal protection under the law, then you what really mean is

You are confusing equal protection under the law and unequal ability to use a right protected under the law.

Guess what, sometimes the allocation of resources isn't fair.  I would like it to be more so.  But i dont think the way to address the problem is to ratchet back everyone's rights.

I would much rather spread around the resources.

Some people are prettier than others or more eloquent - they dont "have more free speech," but you better believe that when they use their rights they definitely get more oomph.  This like complaining that a law that allows everyone to run on a municipal track is unfair because many of the runners are faster than you and thus they "get more running."

Instead of attempting to impose a low speed limit on the track so everyone is equal, perhaps we could work to make everyone faster?


When the people who have the resources to get Congress to do their bidding use those resources to prevent others from getting ahold of their own resources, how can those without spread them around more?
 
2014-06-24 05:15:03 PM  

Brick-House: Admenment to stop the power grab Obama is currently engaged in.
--Provide a means to have immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to insure the President abides by the law as written, not how he thinks it shoud be


derp
 
2014-06-24 05:17:34 PM  

Serious Black: When the people who have the resources to get Congress to do their bidding use those resources to prevent others from getting ahold of their own resources, how can those without spread them around more?


votes
 
2014-06-24 05:18:08 PM  

Teiritzamna: although the idea that the framers did not include the ability to make a handbill, or pay for ink within the "freedom of speech" is pretty alien to me. It makes the First Amendment far far too limited for my taste. And pretty much every court to address the question would disagree with you.


Firstly, they treated handbills as separate, that's why they said "freedom of speech, or of the press" so even in my no money view, you still have all the handbills you want.

Secondly, while I am not a lawyer, I don't feel that this is the case, or else Citizen's United would not have been such a monumental decision. Like I said earlier, just because something is not explicitly a protected right doesn't mean that it isn't related to a protected right, and therefore is completely open to restriction. Restricting the ability to have a blog on the Internet, because you have to pay for Internet access, is clearly not a law designed to restrict money, but to restrict individual expression. It would therefor be entirely prudent for a judge to rule that the law is impermissibly damaging to free speech, and therefore unconstitutional, in the same way that restricting access to the polls is impermissibly damaging to the right to vote, without having to state that the right to spend money on speech is protected any more than the right to go to the polls at any particular time is protected.

But yes, sometimes there can be good discussions on Fark. Every now and then we can have nice things.
 
2014-06-24 05:23:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: OK, then how about we agree with the point made earlier, that if we eliminate corporate personhood, then CU is irrelevant?

Not really because, as noted, (1) the ruling doesn't really rest on Corporate personhood, but upon the aggregation of individual rights and (2) it wouldnt addess the fact that billionaires are still out there.  Trust me the Adlesons and Kochs of the world would love the corporate prongs of CU to be lopped off, because grass roots super pacs and other such groups are the only way the 99% can actually band together to take them on.


Given the insane amounts of money they already donate, I honestly don't think that's much of a reason to not repeal it.
 
2014-06-24 05:26:41 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: When the people who have the resources to get Congress to do their bidding use those resources to prevent others from getting ahold of their own resources, how can those without spread them around more?

votes


I already "funnied" this post once, but I would do it more if I had any alts.
 
2014-06-24 05:28:07 PM  

Brick-House: Admenment to stop the power grab Obama is currently engaged in.


Have all your friends on Facebook blocked you? Get a hint.
 
2014-06-24 05:31:39 PM  

Serious Black: I already "funnied" this post once, but I would do it more if I had any alts.


Hey man, we all know expenditure of money in an election always wins, and the voters are basically irrelevant, which is why Eric Cantor is a lock for the Speaker of the House next term.
 
2014-06-24 05:39:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: I already "funnied" this post once, but I would do it more if I had any alts.

Hey man, we all know expenditure of money in an election always wins, and the voters are basically irrelevant, which is why Eric Cantor is a lock for the Speaker of the House next term.


The fact that Congress is on two-year terms means they spend almost 100% of their time fundraising. That's insane.

We should publicly fund their campaigns. Get 1k signatures or whatever and you're equal to the incumbent. Probably should also eliminate the cap on house members and go with some 250k to 400k or so constituents per rep. It would be a madhouse, but I think you'd get better representation overall. Plus there'd be a lot of non-D or -R people in the House, that would force coalitions. You'd be guaranteed some level of compromise and this whole distasteful monolithic majority party nonsense would be gone, gerrymandering along with it.
 
2014-06-24 05:42:13 PM  

dr_blasto: We should publicly fund their campaigns. Get 1k signatures or whatever and you're equal to the incumbent. Probably should also eliminate the cap on house members and go with some 250k to 400k or so constituents per rep. It would be a madhouse, but I think you'd get better representation overall. Plus there'd be a lot of non-D or -R people in the House, that would force coalitions. You'd be guaranteed some level of compromise and this whole distasteful monolithic majority party nonsense would be gone, gerrymandering along with it.


I am totally behind public funding.  It won't affect expenditures by third party groups, which already dwarf candidate spending in many markets, however.
 
2014-06-24 05:55:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: dr_blasto: We should publicly fund their campaigns. Get 1k signatures or whatever and you're equal to the incumbent. Probably should also eliminate the cap on house members and go with some 250k to 400k or so constituents per rep. It would be a madhouse, but I think you'd get better representation overall. Plus there'd be a lot of non-D or -R people in the House, that would force coalitions. You'd be guaranteed some level of compromise and this whole distasteful monolithic majority party nonsense would be gone, gerrymandering along with it.

I am totally behind public funding.  It won't affect expenditures by third party groups, which already dwarf candidate spending in many markets, however.


sure, those groups dump huge piles. But at least the representative will get to spend time representing instead of begging for cash.
 
2014-06-24 05:57:08 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: I already "funnied" this post once, but I would do it more if I had any alts.

Hey man, we all know expenditure of money in an election always wins, and the voters are basically irrelevant, which is why Eric Cantor is a lock for the Speaker of the House next term.


How many other people can you name who lost an election despite having ten times the funding of their opponents?
 
2014-06-24 07:01:40 PM  
Hero tag?? More like SCARY!

Letting republicans in to tinker with the Constitution is like letting Russian script kiddies in to tinker with your PC's BIOS.
 
2014-06-24 07:22:02 PM  
Do away with PACs and SUPERPACs and every political commercial must have at the end "This commercial was paid for by <insert corporate conglomerate>.
 
2014-06-24 08:08:05 PM  

shroom: Teiritzamna: shroom: FWIW, I think these groups are going about it wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Citizens United decision. But the problem is broader than this one decision. The more general issue that needs to be addressed is eliminating the whole idea of corporate personhood. Move to Amend has it right. Take away corporate personhood, and Citizens United takes care of itself.

So you want to take away the ability for companies to own property and sue/be sued so as to fix a perceieved problem that actually has little to nothing to do with with those previously mentioned abilities?  Because CU was predicated less on corporate personhood and more on good old fashioned first amendment jurisprudence - and removing corporate personhood would merely tactically nuke our economy, as every company basically becomes a full liability partnership, but the Koch Bros. can still bankroll as many ads as they want.

TLDR: Cunning plan/thinking/not all the way through

Where the hell did I say any of that?  I said end corporate personhood.  Corporations are artificial entities.  They should have the rights the people (by way of Congress) vote to allow them, and not have rights the people (by way of Congress) votes to not allow them.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I want hard limits on corporations donating to political campaigns, and I want the Supreme Court to stop telling me no.


Will you hold your breath until you get your way?

Have you considered foot stomping?
 
2014-06-24 08:08:25 PM  

nmrsnr: The right of speech is not a right of venue.


Mind your arguments here - what you just said could validly support the "free speech zones" idea being used in some more wacky places.
 
2014-06-24 08:09:14 PM  

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: Serious Black: I already "funnied" this post once, but I would do it more if I had any alts.

Hey man, we all know expenditure of money in an election always wins, and the voters are basically irrelevant, which is why Eric Cantor is a lock for the Speaker of the House next term.

How many other people can you name who lost an election despite having ten times the funding of their opponents?


Colorado recalls off the top of my head.
 
2014-06-24 09:08:17 PM  

IvyLady: Although....I"m kind of amazed that the Senate's 60 vote rule has never ended up in front of SCOTUS.  I keep wonder if it's because there's no mechanism for that kind of constitutional challenge.


There's no basis to challenge it. The Constitution explicitly allows it to do this, if it wants.

Article 1, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...
 
2014-06-24 10:12:49 PM  

sugar_fetus: IvyLady: Although....I"m kind of amazed that the Senate's 60 vote rule has never ended up in front of SCOTUS.  I keep wonder if it's because there's no mechanism for that kind of constitutional challenge.

There's no basis to challenge it. The Constitution explicitly allows it to do this, if it wants.

Article 1, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...


Yeah but seriously, if those "rules" favor an obstructionist minority using said rules to gain an advantage, they should be challenged.

There have been so many proposed Democratic Party ideas that could have passed with a simple majority instead of that 60 vote shiat.
 
2014-06-24 10:31:35 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: Ok, still not seeing what that has to do with limiting their ability to participate in the political process has to do with individuals participating in the political process.

You cannot have a rational interpretation of the First Amendment that protects Alice and Bob in expressing themselves on their own as individuals, but that does not protect Alice and Bob when expressing themselves together.

The very fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they lose their First Amendment rights.


The fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they get to create another person that can exercise 1stAm rights. Unless, of course, they teamed up 9 or more months ago...
 
2014-06-24 11:05:31 PM  

whidbey: sugar_fetus: IvyLady: Although....I"m kind of amazed that the Senate's 60 vote rule has never ended up in front of SCOTUS.  I keep wonder if it's because there's no mechanism for that kind of constitutional challenge.

There's no basis to challenge it. The Constitution explicitly allows it to do this, if it wants.

Article 1, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

Yeah but seriously, if those "rules" favor an obstructionist minority using said rules to gain an advantage, they should be challenged.

There have been so many proposed Democratic Party ideas that could have passed with a simple majority instead of that 60 vote shiat.


It doesn't matter if said rules are stupid; they are constitutional.  Note that the Senate sets it's rules each term and the party in the majority sets them; IE, if the Democrats wanted to eliminate the filibuster, they could do so.  The Democrats did weaken the filibuster rules recently, in fact.
 
2014-06-24 11:08:46 PM  
The danger of a Constitutional convention is it can't be limited to one subject.  Anything can be proposed and everything in our current Constitution could be a target.  So all the extremes would get bandied about, from outlawing abortion to banning private gun ownership, and everything in between.  Hell, even the 13th Amendment could be revoked.  You know there's some assholes just itching to do that.
 
2014-06-25 12:54:37 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I think we should dump the entire Constitution as currently written, and start over.


HEY!!!
 
2014-06-25 01:09:11 AM  
All right, I have NO IDEA why I was administered the oath to defend the constitution when I enrolled at the local college years ago, but I did take it.

It was the strangest goddamn thing that's ever happened to me in the relationship I have with society, but by gods I accepted the WTF why the hell not situation, raised my right hand and I swore to it.

Whoever tries to knock the Constitution down is gonna have to get through everyone else who's taken that oath, for far better and more logical reasons than I have, and at the very end, they're gonna find me, the completely barking-mad certifiable loony, standing in front of the case in the National Archive, with at least a fking Bowie knife in my teeth.
 
2014-06-25 01:18:30 AM  

Kittypie070: All right, I have NO IDEA why I was administered the oath to defend the constitution when I enrolled at the local college years ago, but I did take it.

It was the strangest goddamn thing that's ever happened to me in the relationship I have with society, but by gods I accepted the WTF why the hell not situation, raised my right hand and I swore to it.

Whoever tries to knock the Constitution down is gonna have to get through everyone else who's taken that oath, for far better and more logical reasons than I have, and at the very end, they're gonna find me, the completely barking-mad certifiable loony, standing in front of the case in the National Archive, with at least a fking Bowie knife in my teeth.


I less than 3 this post so much.

/Who's awesome?
//Kittypie070 is awesome.
///S'rsly.
 
2014-06-25 01:50:19 AM  
So I did some Googling and apparently a few months ago Michigan finally became the 34th state to call for a Constitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment (they first started this idea thirty-something years ago).  So pretty much its on if that counts.

Should a Constitutional Convention ever be called, I hope geographically speaking that I'm on the right side of the country when the whole thing goes to Hell.  No way this country stays in one piece.
 
2014-06-25 02:00:14 AM  

Kittypie070: a fking Bowie knife in my teeth.


Never hold a knife in your mouth - that's just asking for a bad cut.
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-25 02:10:19 AM  

Brick-House: Well, while were having this constitutional convention anyway, why not expand the scope a bit.
Here'd s few to he the ball rolling.

Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress -- Total 12 years
--Power corrupts -- Absolute power corrupts alsolutly

Amendment to Establish Limits for Supreme Court Justices -- Total 12 years
--No fricken reason these people need to stick around for until they're 112 years old and sleeping through hearings.

Amendment to balance the budget.
--I do it, so why not the government.

Admenment to stop the power grab Obama is currently engaged in.
--Provide a means to have immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to insure the President abides by the law as written, not how he thinks it shoud be.


And if we're going that route:

Amendment to hold all Federal officials legally accountable to any international laws and treaties
--"Um, Mr. Bush, there's some guys from The Hague here to take you away."
 
2014-06-25 08:44:09 AM  

Teiritzamna: You are confusing equal protection under the law and unequal ability to use a right protected under the law.


"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

I think it might at least be possible to try arguing that political contributions (including to 501(c) organizations engaging in political activity) by for-profit corporations can be regulated. Such contributions are intended to help the company make more money in commerce, or they aren't. To the extent contributions are intended to help the company make more money in commerce, they are commercial activity, and thus may be regulated by Congress. To the extent contributions are not intended to help the company make more money in commerce, they are a betrayal of the corporation's fiduciary duty to its stockholders... and thus may be regulated by Congress.

((P∨¬P)→Q), ∴Q

Of course, this does absolutely nothing about massive contributions from the Koch Brothers personally; and I'm skeptical whether the courts would buy this particular logic.
 
2014-06-25 08:48:21 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: The fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they get to create another person that can exercise 1stAm rights. Unless, of course, they teamed up 9 or more months ago...


why not?  Its not like they created strong AI, its not like a company actually can speak on its own.  You seem to be laboring under the belief that if Alice and Bob join together and file some paperwork they get 50% more speech somehow, that we now have A and B and AB Co. each capable of independent expression:

A - 1 speech unit
B - 1 speech unit
AB Co. - 1 speech unit

For a total of 3 speech units (if 1 speech unit = the amount of speech a person can undertake)

But this isn't the case at all.

AB Co. can only "speak" through human action.  Unless AB Co. is secretly Skynet, it is merely a vehicle for A and B's expression (Which is basically what Citizens United held).

So what we have is more like:

A - 0.75 speech units (assuming that some of A's time is spent speaking as AB Co.)
B - 0.75 Speech units (same)
AB Co. - 0.5 speech units

leading to a grand total of 2 - exactly as many people are involved in the company.   Companies dont get any extra speech they aggregate the speech of those who work for, run, and fund them. Just as we may say "the NY times said X" with the knowledge that a newspaper doesn't speak on its own, so too can we say "Ford said Y" without worring that Ford is somehow a magic self motivating entity.
 
2014-06-25 09:06:55 AM  

abb3w: I think it might at least be possible to try arguing that political contributions (including to 501(c) organizations engaging in political activity) by for-profit corporations can be regulated. Such contributions are intended to help the company make more money in commerce, or they aren't. To the extent contributions are intended to help the company make more money in commerce, they are commercial activity, and thus may be regulated by Congress. To the extent contributions are not intended to help the company make more money in commerce, they are a betrayal of the corporation's fiduciary duty to its stockholders... and thus may be regulated by Congress.


While i like the way the argument is crafted, as a later drafted amendment, the First Amendment trumps the Commerce Clause.

I personally just wish the court did not cling to such a narrow construction of corruption/compelling interest.
 
2014-06-25 09:44:38 AM  

Teiritzamna: rzrwiresunrise: The fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they get to create another person that can exercise 1stAm rights. Unless, of course, they teamed up 9 or more months ago...

why not?  Its not like they created strong AI, its not like a company actually can speak on its own.  You seem to be laboring under the belief that if Alice and Bob join together and file some paperwork they get 50% more speech somehow, that we now have A and B and AB Co. each capable of independent expression:

A - 1 speech unit
B - 1 speech unit
AB Co. - 1 speech unit

For a total of 3 speech units (if 1 speech unit = the amount of speech a person can undertake)

But this isn't the case at all.

AB Co. can only "speak" through human action.  Unless AB Co. is secretly Skynet, it is merely a vehicle for A and B's expression (Which is basically what Citizens United held).

So what we have is more like:

A - 0.75 speech units (assuming that some of A's time is spent speaking as AB Co.)
B - 0.75 Speech units (same)
AB Co. - 0.5 speech units

leading to a grand total of 2 - exactly as many people are involved in the company.   Companies dont get any extra speech they aggregate the speech of those who work for, run, and fund them. Just as we may say "the NY times said X" with the knowledge that a newspaper doesn't speak on its own, so too can we say "Ford said Y" without worring that Ford is somehow a magic self motivating entity.


However in this case the company, which has hundreds of people, is using ti's influence in a way that only represents the shareholders of the company, not the individual employees. The employees speech units are being attributed to the overall company which may not represent their best interest.
 
2014-06-25 09:54:25 AM  

thehobbes: However in this case the company, which has hundreds of people, is using ti's influence in a way that only represents the shareholders of the company, not the individual employees. The employees speech units are being attributed to the overall company which may not represent their best interest.


At which point the shareholders can either A) bring a derivative action alleging that the company is improperly using their money of B) sell their shares and invest elsewhere.
 
2014-06-25 09:56:20 AM  

Teiritzamna: At which point the shareholders can either A) bring a derivative action alleging that the company is improperly using their money of B) sell their shares and invest elsewhere.


Wait sorry, got your point backwards.

If the employees dont like what the company is doing, they have a few unpleasant options - but that is, unfortunately, again not a First Amendment issue, more of a "fark you economy" issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report