Well do you?


Furore over 'censored' edition of Huckleberry Finn
File picture of the cover of the first edition of 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn', published in 1884 The American classic is the fourth most-banned book in US schools

* Why are parents banning school books?
* Mark Twain in his own words
* Is Tom Sawyer still a top read?

A new edition of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is causing controversy because of the removal of a racially offensive word.

BBC News - Furore over 'censored' edition of Huckleberry Finn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700)

All this PCness never ceases to amaze me..

This preceded the Huck Fib story: BBC News - Why are parents banning school books? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417672)

No... Not at all. Its total Bullsh*t. Particularly about a word in Tom Sawyer, that referred to friend of Huck Finn... that you will hear 10 times a minute on any HipHop music video channel on TV.

Bunch of damn crybabies... jeeze. Talk about their parents raising a bunch of pussies.

Two issues here" - one is about banning books, and the other is deciding what to actually include in the shool curriculum.

First, with respect to a banning books - there is no reason to ban any books from high school libraries that are not outright pornograpic. A well stocked High School Library should include books such as "Catcher in the Rye," "Huck Finn," "I Have Two Moms," "Mein Kampf," "Mao's Book of Quotations," and even (horrors!) the Harry Potter books. There is no excuse to restricting high school students from having access to all these.

As for what books to actually study as part of the school curriculum - "Huck Finn" definitely belongs in the canon of High School literature. However, because it uses the "N word" over 200 times, and because that word in modern times has become toxic, the fact is that many districts just plain won't risk upsetting students and/or parents. So they don't include the book in their curriculum. If replacing the N word with "slave" 200 times means that some of those school distriucts will now give kids a chance to read this American classic, then I say "hurray." I would support using the sanitized version in class, but the original miust be available in the library, and students must be told up front that the book is edited from its original (much like broadcasters do with sanitized movies on TV). And also include class discussion around the use of such words, and why Twain used it in the book.

Hello ben:

You can't wipe out history because you change a word. Just like you can't turn torture into something else by changing a word.

excon

Twain never meant Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer to be children's books. He was making social commentary much like Swift's Gulliver's Travels(he peed on the town of little people to put out a fire) .

How is Shakespeare handled ? Are 21st century sensitivities used when reading the modern text of Macbeth ? Yes . I rarely hear the witches brew read correctly in the original text.

Should it ? I don't know... probably not. Shakespeare's attitudes about Jews reflected the times he lived in. Today the text is clearly inappropriate.

Shakespeare's attitudes about Jews reflected the times he lived in. Today the text is clearly inappropriate.
But isn't that to be part of the discussion in an English or lit class? And Shakespeare and Twain are only two writers whose works reflect their times and the prevailing attitudes/activities. Should we prevent Hester Prynne from getting pregnant? Should we have the beheaded people in A Tale of Two Cities get whipped instead? And certainly Grandfather should feed Heidi something more nutritious than black bread and goat cheese!

Don't worry, they have plans to rewrite Mine Kamph to explain how Hitler was really a saviour of the Jews to make it politically correct.

WG When was the last time you heard the witches brew recited in the original text ? I don't think the revision takes away from the play.

The examples you cite are not really the same . The witches brew reflected a raw antisemitism. I'm not sure the use of the 'n' word in Huck Finn reflects the same prejudices.

Wasn't that actually written in Old English for the original words used... which is much different than modern english (before they got PC on it.)? I know I can't read old English though I've seen it.

In the original text the brew included 'the liver of a blaspheming Jew'. I've seen and read the modern text... and that has been removed .

The witches brew reflected a raw antisemitism. I'm not sure the use of the 'n' word in Huck Finn reflects the same prejudices.

Precisely - if it did, then the book would not be the classic it is. The N word helps articulate the gulf that existed between the even the lowliest of whites (Huck) and blacks. The process of bridging that gulf is of course the point of the book. A truly radical idea in 19th century America.

WG When was the last time you heard the witches brew recited in the original text ? I don't think the revision takes away from the play.
I don't know if I've ever heard or read the revision.

The examples you cite are not really the same .
PC is PC. Altering any text simply to be PC is wrong.

Hello tom:

I'm trying to follow your discussion with WG. Like any good librarian, she's AGAINST censorship.. She believes that children SHOULD be exposed to the classics, and DISCUSS them in class.

Are you saying that the removal of the antisemitic remark is cool, but changing Mark Twain isn't? I can't tell.

excon

in the original text the brew included 'the liver of a blaspheming Jew'. I've seen and read the modern text... and that has been removed .
Of course that should remain in the play. That's part of the discussion!

When are the book burnings, every nation that started to control what is written and what can be read, takes over the press and then burns the books.

I vote we go after excons playboy books next.

But yes my wife was "shocked" we have all of these books and have this year included then in Nate's ( our son" school work. I hope it is not reported to CPS making him read banned material.

I'm not either for or against changing Huck Finn ,because the removal of a word overused doesn't change the story .

I don't think Twain meant it as the same pejorative that Shakespeare did. Not only in Macbeth ;but in other works like the character Shylock in 'The Merchant of Venice',he exposed his inner feelings.

Edit . The question really is ;should it be part of a high school curriculum ?

I'm not either for or against changing Huck Finn ,because the removal of a word overused doesn't change the story .Hello tom:

I'm trying to figure out what you just said... It makes absolutely NO sense... I'm sure it's the justification censors use. It's just flat out wrong... Because the result ISN'T Twain's story. It's the CENSORS story..

What I don't get, is why you don't get that.

excon

Actually Huck Finn was grade school and middle school reading,

And yes I think the change does make the tone, and the harsh meanings of the words.

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
- Mark Twain


Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet B Stowe used the "n" word over a 100 times. Should it be rewritten, too?

Maybe we should fit the Venus de Milo for a bikini top and Michael for a banana sling.

I would love to be able to hear Twain's thoughts on this debate.

Actually Huck Finn was grade school and middle school reading,

And yes I think the change does make the tone, and the harsh meanings of the words.

I read it (actually most of Mark Twains books) in gradeschool... fairly early on too. Didn't make me prejudiced against either blacks or Indians... and know what... THEY weren't offended by it then either.

So how when a black in certain socioeconomic classes can't utter a sentence without using it 3 or three times be offencded when they use it all the time.

And Incidentally I went to school with two Navaho Kids (brother and sister)... they never took exception to Injun Joe.

But yes my wife was "shocked" we have all of these books
Does that mean she wants offensive words taken out of books? I wouldn't hurt her for the world, but Twain put that word in for a reason (and he was as offended by it as I am). The important thing is that we all, including students, need to talk about the word and what it meant back then during Huck's time. (I grew up in NC during the '40s and '50s and saw the prejudice up close.)

edit . The question really is ;should it be part of a high school curriculum ?
Yes!!

I don't consider this censorship. Edited or revised texts are frequently used in the school systems.

But Huck Finn frequently gets outright banned from schools because of the original text . You tell me which is worse ?

I don't consider this censorship. Edited or revised texts are frequently used in the school systems.
There are edited and revised texts and there are edited and revised texts.

But Huck Finn frequently gets outright banned from schools because of the original text .
And it shouldn't be.

Actually Huck Finn was grade school and middle school reading,.

Really? Are you sure you're not thinking of "Tom Sawyer?" I do remember reading Tom Sawyer in 6th grade, but Huck Finn was in 10th grade. I would say that middle school is way to young to understand the social commentary in "Huck Finn," and it would be watered down to be merely a story about two guys on an adventure.

If you're hard-up for reading material, here you go --

ALA | Banned and/or Challenged Books from the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned/index.cfm)

There are edited and revised texts and there are edited and revised texts.

And it shouldn't be.
Quote:
But Huck Finn frequently gets outright banned from schools because of the original text .

And it shouldn't be.


But it is... that's the reality .It is one of the most banned books in America . Schools systems won't bring this worthy book into their curiculum.

But the story is a story of tolerance and should be taught . This revision doesn't change the story or the lessons in the book . I don't see it as a great harm at all.

Well do you ??

BBC News - Furore over 'censored' edition of Huckleberry Finn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700)

All this PCness never ceases to amaze me..

This preceded the Huck Fib story: BBC News - Why are parents banning school books? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417672)

I heard this on the news yesterday. It's bunk!

This sort of PC gets my sphincter hairs in a knot!

I do see it as a harm... because they are changing what is actually in the book to someone's politically correct idea of what SHOULD be in the book. That changes the Authors intent. And at some point these certain groups that are now hyper sensitive and getting their panties in a knot about anyone other then THEM using a certain work will see how stupid they look when they still use it themselves constantly (yet think nothing about using slurs against any other group as well),. then people are going to never have read the book as it was originally published.

These are usually the same people that argue we should give the southwest back to the spanish south of the border... like THEY are the ones that collonised Spain, and not came here FROM spain and took it off THAT bunch of idians first. ( Long list, Inca, Axtercs Xapotecs etc) None of them had spanish blood. Before the Spaniards arrived. And yeah... a large percentage of them have spanish blood, not pure Indian (native american or whatever you with to call it this week) ancestry who not unlike here... are now a minority on their own ancestoral lands.

Just because they stole something 200 years before we stole something doesn't make it right for them and wriong for us.

This sort of PC gets my sphincter hairs in a knot!Yet this website censors words. :p

Yet this website censors words. :p

Most websites do... but none of us are on Par with Mark Twain or Willaim Shakesphere... besides there are ownership rules with websites.

What we type here isn't legally or literally our words or property, they become those of the site owners. Under copywright laws. Talk to a lawyer... they will back that up, I have.

Yes... I know a thing or two about running websites. Nearly a decades worth in fact. Not as a mod... not even just as an Admin... but as a superadmin at the direct server acess level. Where you tweak the PHP code. And that's not my day job.

Yes....I know a thing or two about running websites.I'm running a very large one right now!

**** *** **** ***** ****!
:)

Rick,

http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f27/364849d1293234752-merry-christmas-all-smiley-laughing024-gif

I must clarify.

Yes, we do censor words here because we are not a book or other published material.

We are a website were people can choose to join, read or not.

A published book is a different thing altogether. It is the same in that people can choose to read it or not, but a book is a book. If it's published, then it should be "as is" unless the author agrees to the edits... period.

Removing words from an author's work(s) without the authors approval is ludicrous.

... unless you're in a country where this sort of thing happens: I click my heels, raise my hand and shout Heil Hitler!

Why do people always invoke Hitler for issues they don't agree with? I never understood that.

I'm running a very large one right now!

Doesn't that make it awkward to stand up at the office? :D

Why do people always invoke Hitler for issues they don't agree with? I never understood that.

Why not? He is the [one of many, actually] epitome of a bad dude that duped so many into following him for a bad purpose.

Lemmings are bunk. Those that followed Hitler et al are a bunch of stupid Lemmings.

Thankfully most of them that are still living agree.

And here we are in the good old U S of A where so many Lemmings are willing to give up so much for the benefit of... of... of what, I do not know.

Doesn't that make it awkward to stand up at the office?
Hehe. I play a good straight man.
<cue the gay jokes>

Ok you f******g f****t, bring it on. Come over to my house and we'll duke it out over a couple of cold ones! :p :p

Ok you f******g f****t, bring it on. Come over to my house and we'll duke it out over a couple of cold ones! :p :pThat and this thread is screaming for this:

w9LHzQxE2UI

I do see it as a harm... because they are changing what is actually in the book to someone's politically correct idea of what SHOULD be in the book. That changes the Authors intent.

No it doesn't . It changes a word and in exchange you have one of the best works of one of America's greatest authors taught again in schools in exchange.

How many different revisions of the Bible are there ?

How many different revisions of the Bible are there ?Isn't that more related to the original being in a dead language?

Nope most of the revisions I've read are 20th century versions.

No it doesn't . It changes a word and in exchange you have one of the best works of one of America's greatest authors taught again in schools in exchange.

How many different revisions of the Bible are there ?

Not the same... Who wrote the original Bible? Wasn't a single author there. And it spans several Milenia to boot. With huge changes in spoken languages over that time. And as you know... with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls they found how far off certain translations had become.

Mark Twain didn't speak or write a language that isn't easily understandible or even much different than most people of his region today.


Reason I say that is if you were fluent in any second language you would understand translation... and the fact it is never done literally because basic sentence structures between different languages vary a great deal. Its about learing the words and interpreting them as they might be used if it was originally english. That leaves room for interpretation AND error. None of the bible was written in Modern English. Unless you are mormon.

Do a literal translation of German or Spanish or Italian... you would ask what sort of drugs are they taking... because word placement and structure are far different and can approach jibberish.. I understand Russian and Arabic are far worse but I know NON of those.

That's true with the bible... not true with Mark Twains books.

No...Not at all. Its total Bullsh*t. Particularly about a word in Tom Sawyer, that reffered to friend of Huck Finn....that you will hear 10 times a minute on any HipHop music video channel on TV.

Bunch of damn crybabies....jeeze. Talk about their parents raising a bunch of pussies.

I agree with you censoring some work that was written more than a century ago is total B/S. If n*gg*rs were n*gg*rs back then then it is a true reflection of that society, why sanitise it. Are you afraid the term will come back into general usage? Now if the term were to appear in a recent work you might consider changing it but what happened to free speech in the land of the free, not so free anymore? When you begin censoring books you are one step away from burning them

When you begin censoring books you are one step away from burning them

This argument is over the top. No one here is talking about burning Mark Twain. To me censoring means banning, and no one, no one is suggesting that Huck Finn in all its original glory be banned. The discussion is instead about making available a version with altered words, with the intent of making a work available to people who otherwise would not have a chance to read it. The question is this: Given that some school districts will not allow books with the N word in them to be part of the curriculum (as silly as many of you think that is, that's a fact), if you were the teacher would you (a) use a version in class with the word "slave" substituted for the "N word" 200 times (and I would add clearly point this out to your class), or (b) not offer the book at all? Those are the only choices many teachers will have.

This argument is over the top. No one here is talking about burning Mark Twain. To me censoring means banning, and no one, no one is suggesting that Huck Finn in all its original glory be banned. The discussion is instead about making available a version with altered words, with the intent of making a work available to people who otherwise would not have a chance to read it. The question is this: Given that some school districts will not allow books with the N word in them to be part of the curriculum (as silly as many of you think that is, that's a fact), if you were the teacher would you (a) use a version in class with the word "slave" substituted for the "N word" 200 times (and I would add clearly point this out to your class), or (b) not offer the book at all? Those are the only choices many teachers will have.

It would be preferrable to allow the teacher to demonstrate the racism contained in the attitudes of the people of the day and to do the job of teaching why this attitude is no longer acceptable. I wonder why people are worried about this word when the "F" is in common usage and is just as offensive. Is it guilt for the repressed racist feelings? Talk about double standards

I completely agree with ebaines on this . The choice here is clear. IF you don't offer a somewhat sanitized version for the classroom you don't get it in the class room at all. What a shame !

Huck Finn is too important a work to be denied so there really is no option here.

Huck Finn is too important a work to be denied so there really is no option here.
Is it Huck Finn any longer?

Wikipedia says, "The book is noted for its colorful description of people and places along the Mississippi River. Satirizing a Southern antebellum society that had ceased to exist about twenty years before the work was published, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an often scathing look at entrenched attitudes, particularly racism."

I suggest that is still quite present in the work without the one objectionable word.

I suggest that is still quite present in the work without the one objectionable word.
I grew up in the South hearing that word spoken every day by whites in either a scornful or joking way about blacks.

I say omitting the "objectionable word" greatly dilutes the book's impact and moral.

In library grad school, in the censorship course, we were assigned to read a number of books including Heather Has Two Mommies. It would be the same with this book if the two mommies are made to be just good friends, not lesbians.

Then another generation of students don't get to read it... your choice;because you know the biggest reason for it being banned is that word .

I frankly don't get it . All they need to do is be up front about the revision ,have the editor write a prologue explaining the reasons for it.. and unleash the teachers . Nothing is changed except the fact that an offensive word is omitted from the text. Have you considered that the word itself has changed since Twain used it ? It was not anywhere's near the derogatory word it is today. The word slave ' is an easy substitute in the book ,completely in context.

I can determine without reading the word that Jim is the good guy and gentleman ,and the whites encountered are the scum of the earth.

What is more powerful?. the use of the word.. or Huck's realization that Jim is a human ,in contrast to what he has been indoctrinated to believe... and his ultimate decision to help Jim become a free man , despite what he believed would be damnation ?

And got to thinking
Over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn’t seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I’d see him standing my watch on top of his’n, ‘stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he’s got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell” — and tore it up.

It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they were said. And I let them stay said; and never
Thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head, and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn’t. And for a starter I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.

I agree with you censoring some work that was written more than a century ago is total B/S. If n*gg*rs were n*gg*rs back then then it is a true reflection of that society, why sanitise it. Are you afraid the term will come back into general usage? Now if the term were to appear in a recent work you might consider changing it but what happened to free speech in the land of the free, not so free anymore? When you begin censoring books you are one step away from burning themHell the blacks that cry the loudest use it more often today than Klansmen at a rally in the deep south ever did, and to me that's the height of hypocrisy... and that doesn't include what you hear them call Koreans and Latinos. And I have personally heard that more often than I ever care to.

And I actually do know someone that was at one time the Imperal Dragon. He softened his stance a lot in the years since as he got older. And it was him that told me that, and we are talking over 30 years ago. Sorry nothing more specific that might identify him. Wasn't me... I was a kid back then... a young one.

Then another generation of students don't get to read it... your choice;because you know the biggest reason for it being banned is that word .
Who's banning it?

I frankly don't get it . All they need to do is be up front about the revision ,have the editor write a prologue explaining the reasons for it
Why go to all that trouble? Use the original edition.

Nothing is changed except the fact that an offensive word is omitted from the text.
Did you see my list of 100 books earlier in this thread? Should we change all of those to reflect the concerns of the people who didn't like something in each book?

Have you considered that the word itself has changed since Twain used it ? It was not anywhere's near the derogatory word it is today.
It wasn't derogatory back then because whites accepted it as a legitimate description of/synonym for black people.

The word slave ' is an easy substitute in the book ,completely in context.
It's a cop-out.

What is more powerful?. the use of the word.. or Huck's realization that Jim is a human
The common use of the word in that time and society is the contrast needed when Huck realizes Jim is human.

I frankly don't get it . All they need to do is be up front about the revision ,have the editor write a prologue explaining the reasons for it ..Hello again, tom:

I didn't know that you were so pro PC.

excon

This will help introduce one of the greatest American books back into the classroom without severely compromising content.

As it stands now with your rigid position ,Huck Finn is among the top banned books in American classrooms.

Point is it shouldn't BE banned at all. Nor should the Bible be.

We aren't talking descriptive instructions for handballing, with illustrations.

Its Mark Twain... Hell, back when I was in elementry school we read it... and got our butts paddled if we misbehaved or balktalked to the teacher...

Today they can't read Mark Twain... and they can say and do anything they want short of bringing a gun to class... and if the teacher says anything they get suspended, not the student.

See some real problems there...

As it stands now with your rigid position ,Huck Finn is among the top banned books in American classrooms.
It should not be banned.

Hello again, tom and smoothy:

Right wing, meet the Tea Party. It's going to be a fun couple years.

excon

It should not be banned.

Wonderful sentiment . I'm talking the way it is ;not the way it should be.

Hello again, tom and smoothy:

Right wing, meet the Tea Party. It's gonna be a fun couple years.

excon

Btttttttttttp.


Going to take a few years just to fix the stuff Obama screwed up the last two years with Princess Nancy and Prince Harrys help via rubber stamp.


Just because WE on the right don't blindly believe everything we are told to beilve by the Messiah and his minnions... doesn't mean we aren't entitled to have our differences in opinion.

We all know you get excumminicated from the DNC for blaspheming the Messiah, or not doing or believing as you are told.

I may not agree with Tom on this specific issue but I still respect him.

Besides we aren't that far off . I'm just saying this issue should not be defined in the ideal .

Yeah it's great that books "shouldn't "get banned . But they are in our school districts ;and truth be told ,it isn't a consevative or liberal thing .

The real issue here is how do you get this classic ,which should be taught , into the classroom and satisfy the objections. To me changing the word n* to slave does not change the story one bit.

Look at the text books that go into the classroom now .They are heavily edited for content . Often the complete text of a piece of lit. is not even introduced to the student... only the excepts that the someone else decides is worthy.

Let's not exaggerate this into a book burning or some kind of insidious censorship .

Hello again, tom:

If changing a word to make it more acceptable to some people is good, then that's what we should do... But, it AIN'T good, and I didn't think you thought it was.

excon

You got to pick your battles . I'm not making a line in the sand on this if it means a generation of students don't get to read Huck Finn.

Political correctness just keeps getting more ridiculous. I was hoping it would run it's course and create a backlash but it seems to go on and on. I wonder if civil liberties will oppose this. These books were a product of their time and changing words is like erasing history and it is very wrong. Even in the very PC mid-90s, I had to read parts of "Mein Kampf" in university and there was no controversy about it.

This isn't university we are talking about . This is public schools and it is very much an issue .
I also observe that not once in this entire discussion has anyone outraged by the proposal used the word in question .

Why... didn't need to.

Don't use a lot of other words that are in the english language too. Don't feel they should be banned either.

Perhaps we should ban the work cracker... because Blacks use it a slander against Whites... and substitute the British word Biscuit.

Somehow Ritz Biscuits doesn't sound the same.

Or if you wanted a biscuit sandwich, how would you know what you were really getting before you saw it...

(an FYI, a Biscuit Sandwich typically is a fresh American style biscuit with a slice of baked Virginia ham on it with or without cheese) VS a cracker sandwich wich is usually cheese spread or peanut butter between crackers.

I've taught Pre-K through 8th. Fourth graders and up could handle it.

I've taught Pre-K through 8th. Fourth graders and up could handle it.

Heck... I bet you've heard far worse langue in those lower grades as well from those kids.

Heck...I bet you've heard far worse langue in those lower grades as well from those kids.
Actually, no. I taught at Lutheran grade schools. Even in our suburb, there were/are no concerns about use of bad language. Of course, if I drove east to 16th and Harding (Lawndale) where I had done my student teaching.. .

Here is original text.

I thought till I wore my head sore, but I couldn’t see no way out of the trouble. After all this long journey, and after all we’d done for them scoundrels, here it was all come to nothing, everything all busted up and ruined, because they could have the heart to serve Jim such a trick as that, and make him a slave again all his life, and amongst strangers, too, for forty dirty dollars.

Once I said to myself it would be a thousand times better for Jim to be a slave at home where his family was, as long as he’d got to be a slave, and so I’d better write a letter to Tom Sawyer and tell him to tell Miss Watson where he was. But I soon give up that notion for two things: she’d be mad and disgusted at his rascality and ungratefulness for leaving her, and so she’d sell him straight down the river again; and if she didn’t, everybody naturally despises an ungrateful nigger, and they’d make Jim feel it all the time, and so he’d feel ornery and disgraced. And then think of me! It would get all around that Huck Finn helped a nigger to get his freedom; and if I was ever to see anybody from that town again I’d be ready to get down and lick his boots for shame. That’s just the way: a person does a low-down thing, and then he don’t want to take no consequences of it. Thinks as long as he can hide, it ain’t no disgrace. That was my fix exactly. The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven,whilst I was stealing a poor old woman’s nigger that hadn’t ever done me no harm, and now was showing me there’s One that’s always on the lookout, and ain’t a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared. Well, I tried the best I could to kinder soften it up somehow for myself by saying I was brung up wicked, and so I warn’t so much to blame; but something inside of me kept saying, “There was the Sunday-school, you could a gone to it; and if you’d a done it they’d a learnt you there that people that acts as I’d been acting about that nigger goes to everlasting fire.”

It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn’t try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn’t come. Why wouldn’t they? It warn’t no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn’t come. It was because my heart warn’t right; it was because I warn’t square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger’s owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can’t pray a lie — I found that out.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn’t know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I’ll go and write the letter — and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.

And here is the text revised . It doesn't change anything except now it will be read and taught in schools:

I thought till I wore my head sore, but I couldn't see no way out of the trouble. After all this long journey, and after all we'd done for them scoundrels, here it was all come to nothing, everything all busted up and ruined, because they could have the heart to serve Jim such a trick as that, and make him a slave again all his life, and amongst strangers, too, for forty dirty dollars.

Once I said to myself it would be a thousand times better for Jim to be a slave at home where his family was, as long as he'd got to be a slave, and so I'd better write a letter to Tom Sawyer and tell him to tell Miss Watson where he was. But I soon give up that notion for two things: she'd be mad and disgusted at his rascality and ungratefulness for leaving her, and so she'd sell him straight down the river again; and if she didn't, everybody naturally despises an ungrateful slave, and they'd make Jim feel it all the time, and so he'd feel ornery and disgraced. And then think of me! It would get all around that Huck Finn helped a slave to get his freedom; and if I was ever to see anybody from that town again I'd be ready to get down and lick his boots for shame. That's just the way: a person does a low-down thing, and then he don't want to take no consequences of it. Thinks as long as he can hide, it ain't no disgrace. That was my fix exactly. The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven,whilst I was stealing a poor old woman's slave that hadn't ever done me no harm, and now was showing me there's One that's always on the lookout, and ain't a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared. Well, I tried the best I
Could to kinder soften it up somehow for myself by saying I was brung up wicked, and so I warn't so much to blame; but something inside of me kept saying, “There was the Sunday-school, you could a gone to it; and if you'd a done it they'd a learnt you there that people that acts as I'd been acting about that nigger goes to everlasting fire.”

It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn't try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn't come. Why wouldn't they? It warn't no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn't come. It was because my heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that slave's owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can't pray a lie — I found that out.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter — and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson, your runaway slave Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.

Hello again,

In the same way the wingers try to whitewash history by changing the words in Huck Finn, they did the same thing when they read the Constitution outloud...

It was SUPPOSEDLY a very patriotic event pushed forward by the wingers in congress... But, they LEFT OUT the part they didn't like, I suppose pretending that it didn't happen.. Kind of like they pretend black people weren't called niggers... But, it DID happen. Slaves were counted as 3/5th's of a person in our Constitution. And it's there for all to read (except outloud in the congress).

I thought PC (pretending) was something liberals did... No, huh?

excon

They read the part that was the law of the land today. You don't think the 3/5th clause applies today do you ?

Hello again,

In the same way the wingers try to whitewash history by changing the words in Huck Finn, they did the same thing when they read the Constitution outloud...

It was SUPPOSEDLY a very patriotic event pushed forward by the wingers in congress... But, they LEFT OUT the part they didn't like, I suppose pretending that it didn't happen.. Kinda like they pretend black people weren't called niggers... But, it DID happen. Slaves were counted as 3/5th's of a person in our Constitution. And it's there for all to read (except outloud in the congress).

I thought PC (pretending) was something liberals did... No, huh?

excon

If it was the Democrats that did it they would have left out the first and second amendments... because they don't believe in anyone else's freedom of speech... or having the ability to rise up against them when they try to declare the Constitution, unconstitutional. (yeah I know YOU are pro 2nd amendment unlike so many of your brothers)

they read the part that was the law of the land today.

Not quite. They had no problem reading the part about US Senators being appointed by their state legislatures, although that was changed by the 17th amendment. Or the bits about Presidential succession, changed by the 25th amendment.

The reality is they didn't read the part about "non-free" persons counting as 3/5 of a person because it woud have been an embarrassing TV moment - imagine the poor person assigned to read that out loud, and how his opponent would exploit that clip in ads at the next election. They also didn't include the two amendments dealing with prohibition.

We have slaves today? How can I get one... I'm tired of yard work.


I'm not serious... thats a sarcastic comment just to be clear.

Hello again, tom:

Of course not... But what was the purpose of reading it in the first place? Certainly NOT to pay homage to the founders. Certainly, not to honor ORIGINAL INTENT. If anything, you wound up pointing out that the Constitution is a living breathing document that GROWS with time. You confirmed that ORIGINAL INTENT has NOTHING to do with the reality of today...

Perhaps it's an unintended consequence.

excon

Not quite. Hello e:

**greenie** Good catch!

excon

Well since the Democrats seemed to consider the Constitution as a road block getting in the "WAY" of their agenda... reading it was appropriate. Because so many seemed to be ignorant of what's in it.

And its NOT written by lawyers... or only able to be read by lawyers... its written in plain, clear easy to read english.

you wound up pointing out that the Constitution is a living breathing document that GROWS with time.
Wrong again... there are provisions for changing the Constitution called amendments. I have no issue with the Constitution being changed by amendment as that was the original intent of the Founders.


But what was the purpose of reading it in the first place
To demonstrate that the laws they make should be in compliance with the Constitution . Why do you have a problem with the reading ?

Not quite. They had no problem reading the part about US Senators being appointed by their state legislatures, although that was changed by the 17th amendment. Or the bits about Presidential succession, changed by the 25th amendment.

The reality is they didn't read the part about "non-free" persons counting as 3/5 of a person because it woud have been an embarrassing TV moment - imagine the poor person assigned to read that out loud, and how his opponent would exploit that clip in ads at the next election. They also didn't include the two amendments dealing with prohibition.

Not according to the Washington Compost.
Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010603759.html)

I read the Washington COMpost... and there is nothing about that rag that's ProRepublican or Anti Democrat.

Personally, I sent a letter to the editor asking them when they will make the name change to PRAVDA. I doubt it will be published.


Got one hell of a laugh yesterday... A Subcription letter from the New York Times... wife and I both laughed that we get enough of the DNC propaganda via the COMpost... and on our dime.

#83 edit. Also the 112th Congress under new rules will be required to attach to any bill the provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make the law.

Wrong again....there are provisions for changing the Constitution called amendments. I have no issue with the Constitution being changed by amendment as that was the original intent of the Founders.Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. CHANGES need to be done through the amendment process... However, INTERPRETATIONS, are done through executive order, and/or the legislative or judicial process..

A good example of that is the Citizens United decision... Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations are entitled to the same rights people have. But, the right wing Supreme Court INTERPRETED the Constitution in such a way, as though it did - even though they interpreted it differently for the past 100 years. You certainly didn't mind that "change".

Did they do that because the Constitution is living or breathing? They certainly didn't do it because it SAYS so.

excon

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you saying an individual can petition the government but a group of people can't ?

Are you saying an individual has the right to free speech but not a group of people ?

Are you saying that a person can try to influence their lawmakers but not a group of people ?

#83 edit. Also the 112th Congress under new rules will be required to attach to any bill the provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make the law.

How silly - what is that supposed to prove? For almost all legislation all they need do is attach a copy of the commerce clause and be done with it. That's what they would have done if this rule had been in place when they passed Obama care. Until a suit reaches the Supreme Court there is no right or wrong answer as to whether a particular law passed by Congress is constitutional or not.

I predict that once both the House and Senate are under control of the same party this little gem will quietly disappear - won't matter whether the Republicans or Democrats are in control.

I take them at their word until they prove it wrong. I understand that the commerce clause has been interpreted to meaning all encompassing power. I see it differently . What they mean is that they are restricted by the powers assigned them in Article 1 Sec 8. But if they take a broad interpretation of that I'll be one of their biggest critics.

?Hello again, tom:

The question isn't what I believe.. The question IS, an INTERPRETATION you LIKE and I DON'T, happened WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. That shows the Constitution lives and breathes, because you can't find rights for GROUPS of people listed ANYWHERE in that document... They just aren't there.

excon

I didn't see... or whatever... anyplace in the constitution. THis living and breathing crap is a liberal concept to let them ignore what's clearly written in plain english... because they know they will never get it changed to their definition of the week via the required amendment process.

THis living and breathing crap is a liberal concept to let them ignore whats clearly written in plain english....Hello again, smoothy:

Then find me the PLAIN ENGLISH that gives corporations free speech rights.

excon

So a petition and assembly (1st amendment rights )is something an individual does and not a group ? Do you really think the Founders thought that ? Lol

Explain to me where in the constitution that says it means anything but exactly what its words say.

Because a "Quote" "Living Docuiment" wouldn't need actual amendments to it... yet the constitution SPECIFICALLY calls for any changes to it to be via the AMENDMENT process.


Incidentally... "We the People" doesn't mean "Just us liberals".

so a petition and assembly (1st amendment rights )is something an individual does and not a group ? Do you really think the Founders thought that ? lol
Hello again:

WORDS. Show me the WORDS that says corporations have free speech rights...

excon

Hello again:

WORDS. Show me the WORDS in that says corporations have free speech rights...

excon

Corporations are part of the "WE the People" THey aren't part of the "We the Machines" not yet anyway... this isn't The Terminater. Corporations are owned and staffed by American Citizens that don't give up rights the moment they go to work.


Incidentally... NPR, CBS, NBC, CNN are all corporations... yet THEY stick their noses into everything.

Show me where Corporations aren't covered. Or more specificly... where they are excluded.


Because the Constitution is pretty implicit about what rights the Federal Government Doesn't have. Yet it is completely silent about businesses. And yet... Businesses existed back then too.

Corporations are part of the "WE the People" Hello again, smoothy:

That's an INTERPRETATION of what WE the people means.. It may or may NOT be what the founders thought, since they didn't use PLAIN ENGLISH to say anything about corporations. Your interpretation is as good as anyone's, since the word corporation cannot be found anywhere in "we the people".

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

That's an INTERPRETATION of what WE the people means.. It may or may NOT be what the founders thought, since they didn't use PLAIN ENGLISH to say anything about corporations. Your interpretation is as good as anyone's, since the word corporation cannot be found anywhere in "we the people".

excon

Really... care to prove that... where is it defined in the Constitution that Businesses are not covered... but foreign terrorists are?

I've read it... nowhere are businesses mentioned as being not covered in the Constitution. Yet the left argues they aren't... and amazingly at the same time and the same breath... THEY argue Foreign terrorists are entitled constitutional protections and nowhere in that document are citizens and residents of other countries included.

And it IS written in clear english... you don't HAVE to have 4 years of law school to read it. Because it means exactly what it says.

Hello again, smootho:

We're done. You're off the rails again.

excon

You are the one ioff the rails...

YOU failed to provide ANY reference in the Constitution the supports YOUR claim that Corporations have no rights at all. Most in them here ARE Americans

You also failed to prove where in the COnstitution that Foreign Terrorists ARE. THey aren't Americans...

I know you can read english... The Constitution is written in english.

You can't dream this stuff up as you go.

Incidentally... Under your same argument ex... what rights do NPR. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN have to promote the democrat candidates over Republicans ones like they do when they don't HAVE any rights?

They are corporations... then they are violating the law interfering with elections under your argument. Care to take action against them? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'll try again...

This isn't about ME proving that corporations don't have rights. The constitution doesn't list the entities that DON'T have rights. They list the ones that DO.

This is about YOU proving your assertion that corporations HAVE rights, and it's right there in PLAIN ENGLISH. I'm waiting to read the PLAIN ENGLISH, because, I don't SEE the word corporation in the words, "we the people". You do..

Cool, smootho. THAT'S an interpretation... I'm not going to teach you ENGLISH here smoothy... I have no patience with people who can't keep up with the argument... I HATE repeating myself.

excon

Really... I missed the section that says "as interpreted bty the left".

Where exactly is that now anyway?


You are on the losing end of this argument so you keeop making noise rather than admit it.

Corporations are People... Many are AMericans... Corporations aren't new. THey existed Centuries before the USA did.

THe COnstitution IS VERY specific about what powers the Federal Government has... its also very clear to say the Federal Government has NO rights not specifically granted.


No part of the Constitution does the same for businesses or Coprporations.

Its not there, because it wasn't intended to be there.


THe Contitution is clear... its not written by mushmouth lefties.


I think YOU have a problem with the English language. Its pretty damn clear to me... and most other Americans.

There is ONLY one way to modify the Constitution... and that's VIA amendments and the ratification process is specific...

No place in it does it say... "or whatever you want it to mean".

Its NOT open to any whacked out interpretation.

Hello again, smoothy:

So, what you're saying, is you can't find the words in PLAIN ENGLISH that you said was there... I got it.

excon

Excon losses... Check-mate.

It means what it says... Its not a liberal document than means nothing and everything at the same time.

Excon losses...Check-mate.Hello again, smoothy:

If that floats your boat, but people here CAN read, you know.

excon

Regarding whether corporations have the same rights as people, consider this - people have the right to assembly and free speech, but corporations do not. Specifically, it is illegal for corporations to get together and collude on pricing or dividing markets - it runs afoul of antitrust laws. Corporatons do not have a right to vote (they don't even count as 3/5 of a person). So Smoothy: do you believe that restrictions such as anti-trust laws are unconstitutional?

Regarding whether corporations have the same rights as people, consider this - people have the right to assembly and free speech, but corporations do not. Specifically, it is illegal for corporations to get together and collude on pricing or dividing markets - it runs afoul of antitrust laws. Corporatons do not have a right to vote (they don't even count as 3/5 of a person). So Smoothy: do you believe that restrictions such as anti-trust laws are unconstitutional?
Knowing how and why antitrust laws were put in place. I don't disagree with them. And completely agree they should be applied towards Unions as well.

Get a bunch on non-corporate types trying that and you have RICO act implications.

As far as why Corporations don't have a vote per say... that is logical because the People have a vote... corporations without people are nothing but paper. It would in effect allow some people more than one vote. So that is logical.

Hello again, smoothy:

If that floats your boat, but people here CAN read, you know.

excon

And they all know you are ranting and your argument doesn't hold water... The constitution IS... its not for the left to discard when its not convenient for their agenda. Which for the most part is AntiAmerican in forcus.

Plain English

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....

Is religion established for an individual ,a group ,or both.. There is an implied plurality in that right. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the founders used the word people are they talking of individual rights ? No petition and assembly are the actions of groups of people.

Ebaine I won't get into the constitutionality of the anti-trust laws . Corporations are licensed by the states. They do have to live within the rules established to keep that arrangement, just as an individual does when they are licensed... no difference.

Come on!! I thought everyone here was big 14th Amendment equal protection types. Are we really saying here that corporations are not due the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely ?
What is this Soviet Russia ?

plain English

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....Hello again, tom:

That's an excellent interpretation of that clause.. But, plain English, it's NOT.

Your interpretation of the First Amendment is about as noteworthy as my interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, where I say gays are granted the right to marry. They're BOTH interpretations. Plain English, they're not.

excon

The fact is that a corporation being entitled to rights is as old as the country . You can find it in the earliest opionions of the courts and in the writing of James Madison (chief architect of the Constitution)
"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." (1st Chief Justice John Marshall)

Federalist Papers #10
"[f]actions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of destroying the liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false." (James Madison)

There is no doubt that a corporation has the rights of the individual is consistent with originalist thinking .

There is no doubt that a corporation has the rights of the individual is consistent with originalist thinking .Hello again, tom:

I suggest there PLENTY of doubt about a corporations personhood. Be that as it may, your viewpoint is how you INTERPRET the writings of the founders... It's also what the Supreme Court found, even though 100 years of precedent said otherwise.. But, unless you can show me the plain English, it's an INTERPRETATION. In fact, it's blatant judicial ACTIVISM, pure and simple.

excon

Can't do any better than the words of Madison in the papers he wrote to explain the Constitution to the people..

Hello again, tom:


or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Instead of explaining it, he could have inserted, in plain English, the words "and corporations" right after the word "people". But he didn't, I suggest intentionally so.

Excon

Hamilton, Madison ,and Jay wrote 85 essays now called the 'Federalist Papers' explaining, in the plain language of their time, every aspect of the founders intent . John Marshall was the 1st Chief Justice of SCOTUS and was a member of the ratifying committee.
Their words represent the best understanding of original intent.

Hello again, tom:

We began this discussion with you saying the Constitution cannot be changed without being amended... I believe you're not so convinced now.

excon

Correct... it can't be constitutionally changed except with an amendment. Your argument that a corporation is not entitled to constitutional protection is historically inaccurate .

correct ....it can't be constitutionally changed except with an amendment. Your argument that a corporation is not entitled to constitutional protection is historically inaccurate .Hello again, tom:

That's not my point... I SAY my argument is correct. You SAY it isn't... The fact is, there is NO plain English to confirm either yours or my arguments... There is ONLY interpretation... You can SAY that your interpretation is correct, but that doesn't make it so...

But, whether it's correct or not, the THRUST of this argument is whether the Constitution can be changed in OTHER ways besides the amendment process... I think we've established over these last few pages, that if the Supreme Court has a particular INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, they can make it mean what THEY want, WITHOUT an amendment.

excon

Ex... a point you would think the left would have learned by now...

If one side pushed to allow their haphazzard idea of the moment to stand as interpretation... at some point in side... the OTHER side is going to be in the very same position to do it as well...

I bet you'd LOVE it to be reinterpreted for Abortions to be unconstitutional the next time Republicans hold all the majorities?

What is it they say?


Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it?

If something can liberally "Interpreted" one way...


It can also be conservatively be "Interpreted" the exact opposite way too.

Don't think you are going to like the living document perspective so much when that inevitably happens. But you wanted it.

If something can liberally "Interpreted" one way...

It can also be conservatively be "Interpreted" the exact opposite way too.

Don't think you are going to like the living document perspective so much when that inevitably happens. But you wanted it.Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not going to like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

excon

Extraordinary interpretion beyond intent is not a legitimate Judiciary role. Show me in plain language where judicial review is even constitutional .

This is mostly a post civil war evolution. SCOTUS did not intervene until it blew it in the Dred Scott decision... 50 years after the Marbury decision.

But since then SCOTUS has grabbed way too much power. Since then they have ruled against 160 items of law.
What has evolved is a system that gives SCOTUS unequal powers .Powers the founders never envisioned :
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves
(Thomas Jefferson)

Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not gonna like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

excon

And I already show where the intent was established by the founders.

Hello again, tom:

If there's NO final arbiter of the Constitutionality of law, chaos would ensue. Everybody would have THEIR interpretation of what it said, thereby causing the INTENT of the founders to be lost.

I agree with you about the extraordinary power of our Supreme Court, but I cannot imagine what governance would be like WITHOUT it.

Nonetheless, we're not going back. Like it or not, what the Supreme Court says the law is, it IS. Do you want to go back? Is that a wish, or do you have a plan?

excon

50 years before the 1st reversal... and when they finally did one it was one of the biggest factors that led to the Civil War . Somehow the country survived without .

What is my plan ? I agree that we are stuck with judicial review because there has not been an executive that was willing to challenge it.
I would however propose an amendment to eliminate the lifetime appointment and instead have the justice go through periodic reconfirmations .

I would however propose an amendment to eliminate the lifetime appointment and instead have the justice go through periodic reconfirmations .Hello again, tom:

I don't know.. The idea behind a lifetime appointment, is that the justices would be free to seek JUSTICE, instead of kissing up to whomever the political winds were favoring that day.

But, I sure would like a way to get rid of this particular branch of wingers.

excon

Like the justices have not been prone to politics. (see Jefferson's comments... Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... )

I'm against ALL censorship.

Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not gonna like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

exconI think they interpreted it right... Moveon.org has had free riegn on their speech for far too long... its only fair big business gets it as well.

You can't argue moveone.org is an individual... Unless you bring in George Soros... who literally funds it... in his attempt to have more say and more of a vote, than people born and raised here do.

You know the story about Pandoras box?