5 ms·

Let's actually take a look at the two scenarios. In the case of corporation-owned property, the shareholders indirectly own the property itself. If the governm

by wycats 17y ago

Let's actually take a look at the two scenarios. In the case of corporation-owned property, the shareholders indirectly own the property itself. If the government takes away the property, the shareholders lose the property, and the government violates the takings clause insofar as individual humans have lost money. In the case of corporate speech, the shareholders are not speaking at all. Instead, executives are speaking, protected from the consequences of their speech by the corporate shield. In comparison with the above case, nothing stops the individual executives or the individual shareholders from speaking, either by themselves or in concert with others. What I'm suggesting is that the form of the corporation, which the government created to shield actors from the consequences of their actions, is not itself afforded the right to speech.

grellas 17y ago
Corporations, by definition, cannot have natural rights, and since they don’t exist outside of government, cannot have surrendered any autonomy to the government. Therefore, the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment, cannot apply to them. QED. My comment was primarily directed to the concluding statements (quoted above) that posit a deductive argument in absolute terms and that conclude that the Bill of Rights "cannot apply" to corporations. This absolute position simply cannot be defended based on the law. I agree with you that the issue can get more complicated if the point is limited to the question of free speech. That doesn't mean, though, that the argument is not overstated, which I think it is. By the way, the distinction you make between rights accorded to entities versus rights accorded to individuals through entities is an important one and a thoughtful discussion on this distinction may be found here: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/09/corporate-constitutional-rights.html http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20....
yummyfajitas 17y ago
In the case of corporate speech, employees of the corporation are speaking as directed (ultimately) by the board of directors. The BOD is elected by the shareholders. The majority of shareholders selected the BOD, while the minority agreed to use their property (their share of the corporation) in furtherance of the goals of the majority as per the corporate charter.

by wycats 17y ago

grellas 17y ago

Corporations, by definition, cannot have natural rights, and since they don’t exist outside of government, cannot have surrendered any autonomy to the government. Therefore, the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment, cannot apply to them. QED. My comment was primarily directed to the concluding statements (quoted above) that posit a deductive argument in absolute terms and that conclude that the Bill of Rights "cannot apply" to corporations. This absolute position simply cannot be defended based on the law. I agree with you that the issue can get more complicated if the point is limited to the question of free speech. That doesn't mean, though, that the argument is not overstated, which I think it is. By the way, the distinction you make between rights accorded to entities versus rights accorded to individuals through entities is an important one and a thoughtful discussion on this distinction may be found here: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/09/corporate-constitutional-rights.html http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20....

yummyfajitas 17y ago

In the case of corporate speech, employees of the corporation are speaking as directed (ultimately) by the board of directors. The BOD is elected by the shareholders. The majority of shareholders selected the BOD, while the minority agreed to use their property (their share of the corporation) in furtherance of the goals of the majority as per the corporate charter.