Community >> View Post
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563
In Reply To
Prefer to stay private

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Actually that part was due to various interpretations of the 14th Amendment
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 at 11:45:05 pm EST (Viewed 274 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I agree with this, so long as private companies don't become monopolies.
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 at 10:35:34 pm EST (Viewed 276 times)

Previous Post


I agree that Big Tech as a whole need to be broken up, and that the decisions made by Twitter for mass banning were wrong.

However, you should remember, it was largely conservatives that have advocated for companies to have more sway, and less oversight from the government.

Rand Paul... who rightfully complained about his father's Facebook page being blocked... has been one of the biggest proponents of the government having no say in private business. He even advocated for companies to be able to discriminate... because the market would ultimately go against them.

Your point about Democrats decisions coming against them in the future is a fair one, but you seem to be overlooking that this moment is caused by Republicans not having foresight.

Democrats probably will be screwed by these decisions Republicans are getting screwed because of their advocacy for big business, and anti-regulation. Anti-trust is just a severe form of regulation... the thing Republicans kept saying was the road to Stalinism.

They are also the ones that pushed for Citizens United, which allows businesses to be viewed as people, so they could give unlimited donations, under the guise of speech.

Are you more loyal to your party, or beliefs on what parts of human nature cause the problem?

Because if it is the latter, I think your "prediction" is only half done.

They are also the ones that pushed for Citizens United, which allows businesses to be viewed as people, so they could give unlimited donations, under the guise of speech.


LGDB: This is just a minor correction but I thought worth bring up: it wasn't Citizens United that did this specifically (though Citizens does presuppose it.) Unless I'm mistaken you're thinking of the 1886 decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific rail road, which first applied the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment to a corporation (as it would a person) in a headnote, which was subsequently interpreted ‚Äčas part of the SCOTUS verdict generally (apparently) numerous times.

Citizens United--as well as its precursor in the 70's, "the Belloti decision"--equates the campaign donations of various entities including businesses as forms of speech and therefore would be protected under the First Amendment.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


P.S. I only vaguely remember hearing about this and had to look all this up lol