This sounds like a good opportunity to invoke Citizens United v. FEC to accomplish some good.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” But that was far from the most unusual aspect of the opinion. Far more uncommon and more important, SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” also “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power of sovereignty.
SCOTUS also emphasized that it was protecting the “political speech of media corporations” by restricting “regulation of the press” and protecting even the “power” of “modern media empires.” SCOTUS was protecting “media corporations” and even “the largest media corporations.” So SCOTUS re-emphasized that it has “consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press" (and thus, any corporation) "has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” The principles that protect the Press and corporations protect each of us and all of us.
Citizens United necessarily emphasized the protection for individuals with the same words used to emphasize the protection of corporations. Everything SCOTUS wrote to protect corporations also protects individuals at least as strongly. Indeed, SCOTUS repeatedly emphasized that the reason corporations were protected was because individuals were protected, and discriminating between individuals and corporations regarding political speech (i.e., about public issues or current or potential public officials) would violate our Constitution.
Citizens United emphasized that any purported “law” clearly “must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” “At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society’s definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge.” “In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source” as a “corporation, association, union, or individual.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
As a Michigan tax payer, and parent of kids who have participated in some MSU GATE programs, I object very strenuously to this gag order. I also object to the proposed “Spartan Ventures” sell-off of the MSU athletic department, even though I think that too many universities, especially the Big 10, Pac 10, and other “conferences”, over-emphasize athletics to and for alumni/contributor’s gain at the expense of the students and Michigan taxpayers
This sounds like a good opportunity to invoke Citizens United v. FEC to accomplish some good.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” But that was far from the most unusual aspect of the opinion. Far more uncommon and more important, SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” also “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power of sovereignty.
SCOTUS also emphasized that it was protecting the “political speech of media corporations” by restricting “regulation of the press” and protecting even the “power” of “modern media empires.” SCOTUS was protecting “media corporations” and even “the largest media corporations.” So SCOTUS re-emphasized that it has “consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press" (and thus, any corporation) "has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” The principles that protect the Press and corporations protect each of us and all of us.
Citizens United necessarily emphasized the protection for individuals with the same words used to emphasize the protection of corporations. Everything SCOTUS wrote to protect corporations also protects individuals at least as strongly. Indeed, SCOTUS repeatedly emphasized that the reason corporations were protected was because individuals were protected, and discriminating between individuals and corporations regarding political speech (i.e., about public issues or current or potential public officials) would violate our Constitution.
Citizens United emphasized that any purported “law” clearly “must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” “At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society’s definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge.” “In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source” as a “corporation, association, union, or individual.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
As a Michigan tax payer, and parent of kids who have participated in some MSU GATE programs, I object very strenuously to this gag order. I also object to the proposed “Spartan Ventures” sell-off of the MSU athletic department, even though I think that too many universities, especially the Big 10, Pac 10, and other “conferences”, over-emphasize athletics to and for alumni/contributor’s gain at the expense of the students and Michigan taxpayers
Exactly! Cowards!
So simply put the new board are a bunch of trump loving fascists.