Free speech

This article is a fascinating explanation of the recent supreme court decision allowing corporations unfettered ability to spend in elections...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/?hp

I do not have the time to communicate my strong beliefs on this topic because I honestly believe too much bad speech is better then even the slightest infringement on even the most banal speech. Basically I would rather 1,000 Larry Flints and KKK members (bad speech) be tolerated lest we prevent one person from reading the phone book into you tube (banal). Most of this comes from my firm belief that the government should have no say in making this distinction.

My point about this article is very simple though... perhaps we have stretched this too thin? Its like the 4 year old seeing how far he can spit and reclaim that spit after drinking a glass of orange juice, maybe its time to not suck this one up. The leaps of faith that I think we need to question are not whether limits should be placed on free speech but how we came to identify a corporations campaign spending as speech. In this I challenge congress to clarify what is and is not speech, and (to the ire of some of my friends) in a similar vain to how I call for a distinction between gay marriage and marriage, congress should allow for a separate but equal distinction of a corporation's constitutional rights and an individuals.

Basically, we can not allow the monopolization of speech any more then we can allow a corporation monopolistic powers to disseminating it (FCC). And we should re-examine the ruling that money is 100% entirely speech. This does not mean to cheapen president nor challenge my libertarian tendencies. What this is, is a call for the legislature to define these things such that the court is no longer responsible for doing this from the bench.

The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law and the legislature for making it. You can not blame Alito or Roberts for this ruling, the responsibility falls on the Congress to decide how the law must be changed if this result was not to their liking. Our constitution is a living document that may be amended and clearly separating the protections of a "corporate individual" and a human one in the eyes of the consititution would do a great deal towards leveling the playing field such that they no longer hold undue influence on the powers of the government that "We the people" must control