1st Amendment Issues a Highly Controversial Decision

¶ … 1st Amendment Issues A highly controversial decision rendered on January 21st of this year by the Supreme Court, affirming the right of corporations and other organizations to enjoy consideration as "persons" and the 1st amendment protections afforded by that status, threatens to undermine the foundation of this country's democratic process. With their closely contested 5-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the high court's conservative members have effectively shattered existing precedent regarding the ability of corporations to channel shareholder funds to political campaigns.

In their effort to protect the duly granted right of individuals to contribute money as a form of political speech and expression, the justices in the majority have effectively opened a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. By extending the rights held by individual citizens of this nation to corporate conglomerates and multinational entities, the Roberts court has redefined the menace of judicial activism once reserved only for liberal judiciaries. The case of Citizens United v.

FEC will undoubtedly have far reaching effects on the elective process, however, the decision will ultimately be remembered as a media law case, one which will have lasting implications on the methodology of media manipulation that has been mastered by modern political campaigns. The tenuous line separating the American political arena from foreign influence has been entirely erased by a Roberts court acting seeking to advance its ideological agenda rather than uphold the sanctity of the law.

Long held tenets of media balance in the display of political advertising will likely succumb to the overwhelming financial force of unfettered corporate contribution, and the American voter will lose the once cherished ability to freely decide between candidates based on balanced coverage. Topic 2: While the ongoing movement of populist protest and political activism known as Occupy Wall Street continues to entrench itself throughout New York City, spreading to other municipalities across America in the process, a debate has developed over the conflict between of public health and personal expression.

The sprawling encampments of eager and enthusiastic protesters have evolved into crowded and chaotic collections of people numbering in the thousands depending on the locale. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has cited the increasing danger of degradation to public health in his recent actions to clear Zuccotti Park and other dense clusters of activist activity.

With the region's infamously relentless winter season fast approaching, the mayor and his advisers have determined that the protestors 1st amendment rights to free assembly and expression and outweighed by his own prerogative to protect his constituents. Many of the Occupy Wall Street movement's most ardent supporters have vowed to remain in their encampments despite the looming danger of exposure to the lethal elements, and this flagrant disregard for personal safety has ostensibly compelled Mayor Bloomberg to intercede.

While many observers have questioned the mayor's motives for invoking the specter of public safety, I believe his actions to be sincere and governed by moral, legal and ethical expectation. The mayor has consistently allowed Occupy Wall Street to demonstrate peaceably, without resorting to the tactics of intimidation, injury and incarceration employed by other elected officials, which leads one.