.

I am not a lawyer... In the interpretation of such a bill, what does "natural persons" include and what does it exclude?

Does that mean not corporations? There was something about 1a and corporations recently. Can't remember offhand though.

Looked it up... Thank God for Google
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/natural+person

natural person n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

So, does this remove freedom of speech protection for organizations such as companies, PACs, churches, newspapers, news media stations, websites (like 2ahawaii.com), etc?

I think I remember this discussion before...  When websites do not have freedom of speech protection, they become liable and have to start policing the posts of their users and members. Effectively, a form of censorship and gag order in a public Internet forum (especially if a website is privately owned and operated). Am I correct in this assessment?

Definitely need to oppose this one as it effectively creates censorship and liability in Internet forums and online communities.

i thought 1a only applied in public settings

I think I remember this discussion before...  When websites do not have freedom of speech protection, they become liable and have to start policing the posts of their users and members. Effectively, a form of censorship and gag order in a public Internet forum (especially if a website is privately owned and operated).

Definitely need to oppose this one as it effectively creates censorship and liability in Internet forums and online communities.

I would assume that bill was a knee-jerk reaction to Citizens United, a Supreme Court decision which is panned by leftists as declaring that "corporations are people and have the right to free speech".  Of course, that's a twisted, mangled version of what the decision actually said, but that's of little import to lefists.  What the Supreme Court found was not that corporations ARE people, that corporations are COMPRISED of a group of people, who do not forfeit their right to free speech simply because they have banded together in support of a common cause, which makes perfect sense. 

.

That's the one I was referring to. Thanks

I would assume that bill was a knee-jerk reaction to Citizens United, a Supreme Court decision which is panned by leftists as declaring that "corporations are people and have the right to free speech".  Of course, that's a twisted, mangled version of what the decision actually said, but that's of little import to lefists.  What the Supreme Court found was not that corporations ARE people, that corporations are COMPRISED of a group of people, who do not forfeit their right to free speech simply because they have banded together in support of a common cause, which makes perfect sense.

.

Didn't that Citizens United case come up because the Democratic Party was all piss-off about a last minute advertising campaign that they said made Hillary Clinton look bad or put her in a negative light (got news for them... no need one last minute advertising campaign fo' accomplish that!!)??

Anyway, the way I understand it, Rhoad's proposed revision to the Hawaii Constitution would not accomplish anything because the US Constitution would still apply.

Again, I could be wrong, but what Rhoads introduced might have had unintended consequences, if it were to have an effect...

But either way, why the hell is he trying to limit freedom of speech?

Apparently he just doesn't like all of us citizens running around exercising these stupid rights.  Heil to the furher!

.

What did Citizens United accomplish? Obamacare for one.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-citizens-united-v-fec/

.

I do not think that the first amendment needs to be changed either. It's a dangerous game right now because of rampant misinterpretation and bending the rules to allow torture, indefinite detention, and gun confiscations.

But I also don't believe that a system where private interests bribe the government for handouts is productive either. Everybody calls the welfare programs communist but this system of pay for play politics with powerful interests scrambling for a piece of the pie at the expense of the people sounds an awful lot like what killed the USSR.

.

Just want to throw this here. Apparently, the opposite of "natural persons" is "corporate personhood". Wikipedia has a write up on this and the target of this bill appears to be going against Corporate Personhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

From Wikipedia on the subject of Legal Personality:

"Opponents of "corporate personhood" don't necessarily want to eliminate legal entities, but do want to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[12] Often, this is motivated by a desire to restrict the political speech and donations of corporations, lobby groups, lobbyists, and political parties. Social commentator Thom Hartmann is among those that share this view.[13] Because legal persons have limited "free speech" rights, legislation meant to eliminate campaign contributions by legal persons (notably, corporations and labor unions) has been repeatedly struck down by various courts. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, deciding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[14] by a 5-4 majority, removed restrictions on some types of corporate spending in support of (or in opposition to) specific candidates. This dramatically expanded the free speech rights of corporations."

I have mixed feelings about this... Political spending by organizations do affect elections in good and bad ways, depending on where you are standing from. I agree that this discussion on first amendment is important but it should not distract us from the 2nd amendment battles we face now.

What do you guys think about non-natural persons having freedom of speech protections?  Good or bad?

Would this make more liable the special interest groups that make blatant lies on their election advertisements and endorsements?  Would this discourage individuals from collectively banding together to buy airtime on a tv station that they would not be able to afford on their own?

Mixed feelings... I just don't know.

.

Might it be that if something like this passed it would negatively effect the biased news media, and the ability of the White house to spout propaganda through their web site using tax payer's monies?  Not saying for, just asking.

"hey if we can update the first amendment why not the second?"