4 ms·

Corporations aren't normal associations of people or the arguments below would be correct. They're groups of people hired by others to spend their money WITH A

by wycats 17y ago

Corporations aren't normal associations of people or the arguments below would be correct. They're groups of people hired by others to spend their money WITH A SPECIAL LIABILITY SHIELD. That shield protects them personally from the corporations responsibility and prevents the human rights from leaking into the artificial, government-created entity that is a corporation. The individual people involved, acting by themselves or as a group, are free to speak as much as they want, spending as much money as they want in the process. What they're not, I argue, is free to spend someone else's money through an artificial construct that shields them from all responsibility for their actions. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If the human responsibilities assoiated with a han right are shielded, the human right is shielded too.

_delirium 17y ago
Are you arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations at all then? So was the Pentagon Papers case, which ruled that the New York Times Company had a First-Amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers free from government censorship, wrong? Maybe some individual author had the right to publish them, but the New York Times Company didn't? What about the free-speech precedents involving corporations like adult-film producers?
- Mets102 17y ago
  The New York Times didn't exercise free speech rights in publishing the Pentagon Papers. The First Amendment protects five specific rights (speech, press, religion, assembly, petition), along with protecting against an establishment of religion. The Times was using its press rights under the First Amendment. There are different lines of jurisprudence in First Amendment law depending upon the right implicated. A press case is going to be decided upon a different line of cases than a free speech case. The corporate or non-corporate form is irrelevant. It's looking to the substance. There's a difference between freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Freedom of the press protects the ability to report the news. It's rooted in the the British government prosecuting those publishing stories critical of the government as seditious libel, giving rise to the maxim, "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." Speech, in contrast, is the speaking of opinion. The Times did not do this in publishing the Pentagon Papers. There is a difference between a newspaper with corporate form publishing the news and a corporation such as ExxonMobil or Google effectively advocating for a specific candidate.
  - _delirium 17y ago
    That's not my understanding of the relevant precedents--- the Supreme Court has never interpreted the "freedom of the press" to refer to a specially protected class of reporters or news companies, or limited it to reporting the news. It has been held to protect the First Amendment rights of not only news corporations like the New York Times, but also companies that produce pornographic films and magazines, for example (one of the important precedents on the First Amendment's protection of parody involves an issue of Hustler). It seems to have been read much more broadly to mean, roughly, "the freedom to publish things, like books, newspapers, and films". For example, films like Hillary: The Movie, which was the thing at issue in Citizens United. I think there's probably some way the other outcome could've been reached, but it would be trickier than I think a lot of people are arguing. It would have to be a narrow prohibition against direct electioneering by corporations, carved out as a First-Amendment exception due to the compelling government interest in free elections/etc. (similarly to how obscenity, libel, false advertising, and "false-light disclosure of private facts" are recognized exceptions). And then specific cases would have to be investigated to see which side of the line they fell on: for example, to determine whether Hillary: The Movie was a real movie, or pure electioneering disguised in a sham movie.

by wycats 17y ago

_delirium 17y ago

Are you arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations at all then? So was the Pentagon Papers case, which ruled that the New York Times Company had a First-Amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers free from government censorship, wrong? Maybe some individual author had the right to publish them, but the New York Times Company didn't? What about the free-speech precedents involving corporations like adult-film producers?

Mets102 17y ago
The New York Times didn't exercise free speech rights in publishing the Pentagon Papers. The First Amendment protects five specific rights (speech, press, religion, assembly, petition), along with protecting against an establishment of religion. The Times was using its press rights under the First Amendment. There are different lines of jurisprudence in First Amendment law depending upon the right implicated. A press case is going to be decided upon a different line of cases than a free speech case. The corporate or non-corporate form is irrelevant. It's looking to the substance. There's a difference between freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Freedom of the press protects the ability to report the news. It's rooted in the the British government prosecuting those publishing stories critical of the government as seditious libel, giving rise to the maxim, "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." Speech, in contrast, is the speaking of opinion. The Times did not do this in publishing the Pentagon Papers. There is a difference between a newspaper with corporate form publishing the news and a corporation such as ExxonMobil or Google effectively advocating for a specific candidate.
- _delirium 17y ago
  That's not my understanding of the relevant precedents--- the Supreme Court has never interpreted the "freedom of the press" to refer to a specially protected class of reporters or news companies, or limited it to reporting the news. It has been held to protect the First Amendment rights of not only news corporations like the New York Times, but also companies that produce pornographic films and magazines, for example (one of the important precedents on the First Amendment's protection of parody involves an issue of Hustler). It seems to have been read much more broadly to mean, roughly, "the freedom to publish things, like books, newspapers, and films". For example, films like Hillary: The Movie, which was the thing at issue in Citizens United. I think there's probably some way the other outcome could've been reached, but it would be trickier than I think a lot of people are arguing. It would have to be a narrow prohibition against direct electioneering by corporations, carved out as a First-Amendment exception due to the compelling government interest in free elections/etc. (similarly to how obscenity, libel, false advertising, and "false-light disclosure of private facts" are recognized exceptions). And then specific cases would have to be investigated to see which side of the line they fell on: for example, to determine whether Hillary: The Movie was a real movie, or pure electioneering disguised in a sham movie.