Hacker News Reader

Comment by thekevan | Hacker News Reader

"get tried for treason"

The First Amendment would disagree with you.

Fuck the first amendment, how about the constitutional definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The reasoning would be simple: The corrupt members of the government have levied a body of men to overthrow the democratic institution that we call the United States of America.

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war....

"Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money.

There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.

I think there's a fine line between free speech and buying votes, the latter of which in my (probably hyperbolic) opinion should be treasonous.

It's very coarse and clear as far as I'm concerned.

Speech != money. Talk/write/etc all you want. Even spend money on spreading your "voice". But, giving people money or "in kind" is clearly bribery and not speech.

You are mistaken. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment. Try offering a police officer some cash next time you get a speeding ticket. Or setting up a nice deal to put kids in jail [1].

Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corr...

You've misunderstood. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment and I never said they were. Donations are regarded as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes.

I worked in Congress and saw a lot of good people doing a lot of good things. In my three years there I never saw any of the culture of greed and corruption that is perpetuated in so many places. It's sad.

"Donations are regarded [by those who receive them] as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes."

Yes. That pretty much nails the complaint on the head right there.

"I never saw"

And that would be the second.

And that pretty much hits the nail on the head for why the ruling for Citizens United is bad. It basically legalised bribes by confusing it with free speech.

Uh, what? You're claiming that those in congress are doing great things for us and the culture of greed and corruption is a perpetuated lie? Surely I've misread what you're saying because I can't imagine any person intelligent enough to even post online would say something so ridiculous.

What's the difference between a "donation" to a power figure and a bribe?

He said "If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason."

So the First Amendment would not be a problem there. It's hardly a prerequisite of a revolution to keep the same constitution as the old regime or to interpret it in the same way --quite the opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com