Monday Morning Miscellany: Communal Guns, Collections Agent Gets 85-Year-Old Woman Hauled In For ”Suicide Evaluation,” and Campaign Contributions as Free Speech

The “Community Gun”: It’s like Zipcar. Except with guns. Too bad “zipgun” is already taken.

Police Take 85-Year-Old Woman For ”Suicide Evaluation” After Wells Fargo Collections Agent Reports Her: He sort of claims she used the word “suicide” while he was harassing her (well, he doesn’t use the word “harassing”); she’s suing for $250,000, plus her medical expenses (yes, she was charged $1055 for the evaluation).

Montana v Citizen’s United: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling gave corporations and other organizations the right to spend unlimited money on federal political campaigns, classifying it as “free speech.” Last week, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 1912 state law limiting this sort of campaign funding. So opponents of the Montana ruling are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court (their application)

 

This article, and all articles on this site, are
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.

This entry was posted in Court Rulings, Lawsuits and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Monday Morning Miscellany: Communal Guns, Collections Agent Gets 85-Year-Old Woman Hauled In For ”Suicide Evaluation,” and Campaign Contributions as Free Speech

  1. Powers Powers says:

    Citizens United is one of those decisions that almost everyone agrees is probably right as written, and that almost everyone agrees should be rendered moot by new rules. The problem is, the people who would have to write the new rules are the only ones who don’t think they’re needed.

  2. Winter Wallaby Winter Wallaby says:

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling gave corporations and other organizations the right to spend unlimited money on federal political campaigns, classifying it as “free speech.”

    Do you consider the right to contribute unlimited money to a political campaign ”free speech,” . . .

    I agree with the Citizens United decision, but voted “no” on your poll, which asks a different question (and one which I believe is irrelevant to the Montana law). I believe corporate spending on political advertisements is free speech (or if you prefer, “free speech”) protected by the First Amendment. However, I do not believe that corporate contributions to political campaigns are free speech, and that belief is consistent with Citizens United.

  3. Perry Mason Perry Mason says:

    Everything anyone does is “Free Speech”, so why not contributing money?

    • Mark in Boston Mark in Boston says:

      I’m a performance artist. Using my free speech rights I stage “living theatre” street performances that explore the issue of violent death. I am willing to create and perform a new work on commission, if you know somebody who you think should be my victi … I mean my co-performer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>