| Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United |
| From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu> |
| Date: 10/2/2010, 8:58 PM |
| To: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
(1) That turns out not to be so; I’m writing a
law review article on the subject, and I’ve seen no evidence that “press” meant
the publishing industry, and considerable evidence that it meant the
technology. Authors who weren’t newspaper publishers were just as protected as
other users of printing technology.
(2) But in any case, even if “the press” gives some
extra rights to the publishing industry (and I stress again that I know of no
Framing-era evidence for that meaning), why would those extra rights – under Mr.
Abramson’s approach – include the rights of corporations? After all, it would
still be the case that only human beings are capable of managing a newspaper,
deciding what to publish, and so on.
Eugene
From: Daniel Abramson
[mailto:danielkabramson@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:12 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
The 1st Amendment doesn't use the words "printing
press," it uses the words "the press." My understanding is
that this referred to the publishing industry generally. As such, it
seems appropriate that media companies would have greater rights than other
corporations.
Daniel
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
How does that square with the argument
that “given that only human beings are capable of speech, is it unreasonable to
assume that the drafters of the 1st Amendment also intended to refer only to
human beings?” After all, given that only human beings are capable of
operating a printing press, is it unreasonable to assume that the drafters of
the 1st Amendment also intended to refer only to human beings?
Eugene
From: Daniel
Abramson [mailto:danielkabramson@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
No,
I think that media corporations are protected by the "or of the
press" clause.
Daniel
On
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>
wrote:
Again, only human beings are capable of operating a printing press, too.
Is your position then that the First Amendment doesn’t protect media
corporations?
Eugene
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu]
On Behalf Of Daniel Abramson
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 4:06 PM
To: JBoppjr@aol.com
Cc: BSmith@law.capital.edu;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
Jim,
I
don't think this can be the entire analysis. Certainly there might there
be circumstances in which it can be inferred that the Constitution is referring
to natural persons, even where not explicitly stated. Does the 13th Amendment's
prohibition of slavery similarly extend to corporations? Obviously not,
even though the language fails to identify slavery "of persons."
"Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Of
course, we know from the meaning of the word "slavery" that the
drafters of the amendment were referring to natural people. But nothing
in the plain language of the 13th Amendment includes this limitation. And
given that only human beings are capable of speech, is it unreasonable to
assume that the drafters of the 1st Amendment also intended to refer only to
human beings?
Daniel
...