I guess ATT and Direct TV did not get the message. Query: why could a stockholder not sue the Boards of Directors of these woke giants for damaging the value of their investment. Looking at the membership of the Boards of both companies they are all screaming liberals/democrats and have obviously taken their marching orders from the traitorous democratic party.
Paul's analysis is spot on, and it highlights why the left's attack on the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court case extending free speech rights to unions and business corporations, is so misguided. As Paul suggests, business corporations are, in general, reluctant to take political positions because it's bad for --- you guessed it --- business, and in the wake of Citizens United there has been no significant uptick in commercial corporations' political expression except for current wokeness, which is more a matter of policy than speech. A Supreme Court case in the late 1970s said independent contributions to support a candidate,, as opposed to direct contributions to a candidate, enjoy First Amendment protections. It's this decision, not Citizens United, that opened the money spigot. Some on the left attack Citizens United on the grounds corporations are not protected by the First Amendment, which is absurd. Most all of media are corporate, so it would gut the First Amendment if it didn't apply to them. And NY Times v. Sullivan, which protected speech from libel claims, involved a corporation --- The New York Times Company. Jim Dueholm
While we all value and are concerned about the loss of our “freedom of speech”... what has been more pernicious is the loss of our “freedom of silence”. That has been the push to compelled speech with the charge that silence makes a person, organization or company complicit.
I guess ATT and Direct TV did not get the message. Query: why could a stockholder not sue the Boards of Directors of these woke giants for damaging the value of their investment. Looking at the membership of the Boards of both companies they are all screaming liberals/democrats and have obviously taken their marching orders from the traitorous democratic party.
Paul's analysis is spot on, and it highlights why the left's attack on the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court case extending free speech rights to unions and business corporations, is so misguided. As Paul suggests, business corporations are, in general, reluctant to take political positions because it's bad for --- you guessed it --- business, and in the wake of Citizens United there has been no significant uptick in commercial corporations' political expression except for current wokeness, which is more a matter of policy than speech. A Supreme Court case in the late 1970s said independent contributions to support a candidate,, as opposed to direct contributions to a candidate, enjoy First Amendment protections. It's this decision, not Citizens United, that opened the money spigot. Some on the left attack Citizens United on the grounds corporations are not protected by the First Amendment, which is absurd. Most all of media are corporate, so it would gut the First Amendment if it didn't apply to them. And NY Times v. Sullivan, which protected speech from libel claims, involved a corporation --- The New York Times Company. Jim Dueholm
While we all value and are concerned about the loss of our “freedom of speech”... what has been more pernicious is the loss of our “freedom of silence”. That has been the push to compelled speech with the charge that silence makes a person, organization or company complicit.
Great piece. I missed your excellent reporting and thinking.
One typo.