Hebben bedrijven 'recht van spreken'

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

In tegenstelling tot de manier waarop wij onze Grondwet gebruiken, gooien
de Amerikanen je er mee dood (soms letterlijk).
De rechtzaak over 'Hillary: The Movie' zet het gebruik van het recht op
'free speech' door ondernemingen op scherp.

De mening van de nieuwste rechter bij de US Supreme Court is daarom
frappant. Zij zet vraagtekens bij de 'juridische constructie' om bedrijven
'recht van spreken' te geven, waardoor deze hun 'onbeperkte financiele
middelen' kunnen inzetten om hun gelijk te halen.

Groet / Cees

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/09/sotomayor_says_shut_up.cfm
September  10
22:13 GMT +00:00
Sotomayor says "Shut up"

I WAS in the Supreme Court yesterday, watching the argument about
“Hillary: The Movie” and free speech for this week’s column
(http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613).
It was Sonia Sotomayor’s first case as a Supreme Court Justice, so all
eyes were on her. She didn’t say much, but one thing she said struck me.
The courts “created corporations as persons,” she said, and “there could
be an argument made that that was the Court's error to start with.” It was
a mistake, she suggested, that the Supreme Court “imbued a creature of
State law with human characteristics.” She’s referring to the notion that
corporations have a right to free speech under the First Amendment. She
appears not to agree with it. From the tone of her remarks, it seems she’d
rather they shut up. So if you are a corporation and a politician vows
just before an election to ban your product, you can’t take out ads to
shoot back at him. That hardly seems fair.

Here’s the transcript
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf).
Note also Scalia's gravelly sarcasm.

UPDATE: Another startling discovery is the extent to which state
governments and even private litigators have used campaign-finance laws to
attempt to silence the little guy.

The website of the Institute for Justice gives several examples
(http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2395&Itemid=165).
Even though the IJ's lawyers won most of these cases, they are still
shocking
(http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1269&Itemid=165).

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********