[Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

[Mike Godwin]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the
> legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
> to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
> criticized by President Barak Obama....

I don't believe I suggested that Citizens United hasn't been
criticized by knowledgeable people. (I'm a critic too.) President
Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, for example, has
surely read both Bellotti and Citizens United.  What I said,
specifically, was that when I read popular discussions of Citizens
United online, more often than not I'm reading commentary from someone
who hasn't read the cases.

> You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism
> section of the ruling page.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Criticisms)
>

My habit is to read the decision directly rather than read the
Wikipedia entry. No reflection on Wikipedia, of course -- it's just
that as a practicing attorney I am professionally driven to consult
primary sources.

> Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
> corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help
> understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at
> law.

My own habit is to read the cases directly, since I often must discuss
them with fellow lawyers who have also read the cases.

> We are Media too, Mike.

Just so. And it's something I never forget. All media must be received
skeptically.


--Mike