Public Citizen Now Wants to Change the First Amendment

Public Citizen, who proudly worked to put small craftsman and makers of baby quilts out of business with the CPSIA, also doesn’t like the 1st ammendment. They find it flawed, and think they know best how to fix it:

“Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
“We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment.”

Um, yeah, given their brilliant work on the CPSIA, which outlaws books for children under 12 if they were printed before 1985, which caused German toy makers who operate under more stringent rules (but less stupid paperwork) to pull out of the American toymarket, sure, I want these guys mucking about with the Constitution.

They don’t like the McCain Feingold ruling from the Supreme Court today.  But, as Ed points out:

But what then would constitute a corporation?  Ralph Nader’s group obviously wants to apply this to the private sector, but Public Citizen itself is a form of corporation, a non-profit.  If they find corporate involvement in politics so distasteful, why not apply that restriction to all corporations?  In fact, most media outlets are for-profit as well.  Why should they not face regulation in order to clean up biases and misinformation, just like any other for-profit corporation?
As we see, the slippery slope on curtailing freedom of speech gets steep right from the start.  Why, some people may want to limit speech rights to citizens only, and not to non-citizen residents, legal or illegal.  Blogs can be dangerous, according to some people, so why not ban them at the same time?

Given all the supposedly ‘unintended’ consequences of the CPSIA, these guys should be  groveling in shame and asking for forgiveness, not trying to wreak more havoc in this country. 

This entry was posted in CPSIA, government, libertarian ideals. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.