KO could turn lemon into ade AND save the country from CU

[grasswire]

Work with me here.

I'm sure this possibility has occurred to Keith.

He has the opportunity here to actually, literally, save the United States of America from tyranny. The opportunity to take the fight to the right in a big, splashy way that would make history. It would be one of the famous cases before the Supreme Court.

He could sue to test whether a corporation has more right to free speech than a citizen does, in light of Citizens United.

It could be an amazing opportunity, for a brave man who loves his country and also loves limelight.

It could transform the national conversation.

[polichick]

1. He'd be handed his ass by THIS Supreme Court...

But the press coverage might be cool - if he could get any.

[grasswire]

3. even so -- the exercise would shine light on the matter

Even if he lost, the country might be educated. I'm sure a lot of lawyers would jump at the chance to take this to court.

[polichick]

6. Yes, if the networks would cover it. Once Comcast takes over at msnbc...

...it'll be harder than ever.

I'm sure Keith is thinking about it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. But campaign donations are a free speech issue.

Does another individual have the right to buy your First Amendment Rights?

[polichick]

20. My point is, more than half of this Supreme Court is a subsidiary of...

...the Republican party.

[Nite Owl]

2. That does sound possible

and I'm sure that some organization would help him do it. I hope he does it.

[grasswire]

4. ACLU

It's a natural.

[Roma]

5. The constitution protects from suppression of free speach

by GOVERNMENT, not private institutions. The 1st amendment does not apply to a willingly entered into employment contact.

[Drix]

9. Really?

Can a employment contract restrict your right to own a gun, practice your religion, marry inter-racially, vote, use birth control, have an abortion, bear children, peacefully assemble, join a union, hire a lawyer, etc?

[Roma]

10. If you willingly sign one?

Ask Ben Roethlisberger.

Or see if the ACLU will provide a defense for you if you violate the TOS on Democratic Underground that you were free to agree to or not.

[Drix]

11. Apples and oranges.

DU is not my employer who is directing me how I can spend or not spend my own money.

[Roma]

13. Alrighty then. *sigh*

n/t

[BzaDem]

16. Yes, such a contract can, provided there is no law against such a contract. Nothing in the

Constitution automatically bans contracts that restrict those rights. If you brought a Constitutional case, you would be laughed out of court.

[sabrina 1]

19. The issue is, can a Corporation remove the Constitutional rights of

citizens to vote according to their beleifs and donate to candidates they choose.

This mantra that 'yes' because they are 'private' has been accepted but never really challenged. If it is true that your boss can control your life, because you signed something because you needed to eat and feed your family, then why was slavery such a problem?

Corps need to be reigned in badly in this country. The most they should be able to do is get an agreement not to bring politics, religion, sex etc. into the office. But once you step out of their door, there should be no effing way they have control over you. How that happened, is a mystery to me. And the people who keep repeating it are helping to make it gospel. It's way past time to challenge it.

One way is to educate people not to sign contracts that attempt to control their lives. I refused to do so when presented with a contract in a private school I was working for. They wanted to restrict my ability to work within a certain limited area after I left that school for a number of years. I was outraged and said 'no way' should they be able to control what I did when I left.

Seemed insane to me to even consider it. They wouldn't remove it and I wouldn't sign it, so I worked without a contract, which was fine by me. The following year it was not in the contract.

People have to stand up, the results are not always dire. Bullies need to be confronted, not caved into.

And no total stranger or entity has the right to control people's lives once they leave the office. We abolished slavery a while ago. We apparently didn't get that message across to some people.

[Drix]

7. I agree.

The fact that the USSC has ruled that corporations have complete and unfettered access to the political process under any and all circumstances and an actual flesh and blood citizen like KO does not is outrageous. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right of corporations but as it now stands not only do individuals have less rights to the political process they are also subservient to corporate rights. The United States Constitution is about individual rights. It mentions them specifically over and over. No where are corporate rights mentioned.

[MineralMan]

8. There is NO constitutional issue here.

None.

[DCKit]

12. If money is speech and his donations aren't allowed by his employer...

then his right to free speech is being suppressed.

[BzaDem]

14. Why do you think the Constitution says that private parties can't suppress your right to free speech

if you sign a contract allowing them to do so?

Have you ever read the First Amendment? It applies to the GOVERNMENT. Not to private parties voluntarily agreeing to a contract. "Congress shall make no law" binds Congress. Not private parties.

[MineralMan]

17. You're missing the point, here. Olberman is working under a

contract that requires him to disclose such donations. He did not. He is suspended. I don't like it, but it is not a constitutional issue in any way. The First Amendment applies only to government censorship.

[Taverner]

18. The Freepers of the world are already cheering KO's firing

But they seem to go silent when I ask them "Does YOUR employer have a right to know who you give YOUR OWN money to on YOUR own personal time?"