|
The campaign finance ruling
|
|
... isn't something I have anything directly to say about right now.
But I am amused that the language being used to criticize the decision is basically identical to that used against judicial rulings on same-sex marriage. -Morgan. 
Corporations are not people.
-------------- Epsilon 
And yet... copyright law seems to think they ARE. (XP)
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.'' -- James Nicoll
Legal precedent is that corporations have all the legal rights of individuals, including freedom of speech - this has come up frequently in issues related to advertising, for one example.
While the constitutional prohibitions of discrimination are explicitly limited to specific situations and criteria, the general opinion of the court has long been that the intent is to disallow consideration of any 'separate classes' of people, be it 'noble and peasant' or 'corporate and real'. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
IF they have the rights, then they should have the RESPONSIBILITIES as well.
Let's see the Disney Corporation having to serve Jury Duty.  ''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.'' -- James Nicoll 
given how sociopathic most corporations act, I really don't want to see any corps on jury duty.
-Terry ----- "so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today" TF2: Spy 
And with our luck, Disney Corp would end up on the jury for "RIAA vs. John Doe #86957"...
Too bad the draft's been suspended, though. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Can I marry a corporation? Can a corporation be sent to jail?
No? Then corporations are not people. Making a corporation have the same rights as people doens't create equality, it creates unequality. Corporations are (I know this is hard to believe but hear me out!) made up of people. People control them, decide what they do with their money and resources and so on. So if a corporation has the same rights as people then the people in charge of corporations have double the rights of us. After all, not only can the people behind the corporation take advantage of their free speech, but the corporation itself can as well! They have twice as many voices as us! (actually I lie, thanks to the economics involved they have 1000 times as many voices as the rest of us) This isn't even getting into the fact that until now the courts have not, in fact, ever declared a corporation a person. A clerk working for the court (who also happened tothe owner of a railroad) added that bit on his own to a decision in a case that had been brought against the railroads. ------------------ Epsilon
I came across a good point about this:
"Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy."
khagler: Very good point. Carry on.
And to put the final nail in the coffin of this argument... take a look at it from the Supreme Court's point of view. To them this isn't about whether or not a corporation is a person or not, it's about what the constitution says. The United States Constitution does not say, "People have a right to free speech". It says, "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech." In short: The US Constitution acknowledges the right to free speech of humans, corporations, limited liability partnerships, pigs, dogs, gerbils, and little blue furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. It doesn't care what you are. You have the desire to speak, you have the right to do so. Full stop. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Actually, there are many legal restrictions on free speech in the U.S., which is one of several reasons why the matter is not clear-cut and the decision was far from unanimous.
I'm of somewhat undecided mind about this, as with most free speech issues. I think the U.S. sometimes errs to far on allowing it due to it being enshrined as a right. I think other countries, such as Britain, sometimes err too far in the other direction because it is not. Ultimately I think speech should be unrestricted until and unless it harms people - but unfortunately, it's hard to consistently and fairly define where that line is drawn. Incidentally, it is a textbook-perfect (and rather silly) strawman argument to say that an opposition to granting corporations certain rights of personhood equates to stripping them of all legal status and rights. 
Oh, yes, Rev, seconded!
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
