Comments on: Corrected by their own former lawyer http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/corrected-former-lawyer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=corrected-former-lawyer Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 22 May 2013 03:33:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: Pete http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/corrected-former-lawyer/comment-page-1/#comment-185900 Pete Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:11:29 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34417#comment-185900 Details, details. Details, details.

]]> By: Jerryskids http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/corrected-former-lawyer/comment-page-1/#comment-185017 Jerryskids Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:28:48 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34417#comment-185017 Except that the NYT doesn't have a 'faulty grasp' of the Citizens United decision - they know full well what the decision said. What they want is 'free speech for me but not for thee'. (A most excellent Nat Hentoff title, btw.) And why is corporate opinionating presented as a free speech issue when it seems so clear to me that - with the messages being published and broadcast - the issue is freedom of the press? Since when has The Press meant only 'the Anointed of the High Holy Church of Impartial Journalism' rather than 'any idiot with the wherewithal to distribute his blatherings'? Except that the NYT doesn’t have a ‘faulty grasp’ of the Citizens United decision – they know full well what the decision said. What they want is ‘free speech for me but not for thee’. (A most excellent Nat Hentoff title, btw.)

And why is corporate opinionating presented as a free speech issue when it seems so clear to me that – with the messages being published and broadcast – the issue is freedom of the press? Since when has The Press meant only ‘the Anointed of the High Holy Church of Impartial Journalism’ rather than ‘any idiot with the wherewithal to distribute his blatherings’?

]]>