26 ms·

the question wasn't "does this prohibit the freedom of speech", it was "does a corporation have the freedom of speech" in the first place. No, that wasn't it.

the question wasn't "does this prohibit the freedom of speech", it was "does a corporation have the freedom of speech" in the first place. No, that wasn't it. The question was, "when acting in concert as a corporate body, do people retain their freedom of speech". Nobody has shown a compelling reason why people acting together shouldn't have the same rights as each of us has individually.

crux_ 17y ago
The limited liability granted to corporations is an excellent reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as a person. After all, they don't have the same responsibilities. But a more basic reason is that a corporation is not a person! It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership -- it is its own thing and there is no inherent reason whatsoever why it should have any rights at all, including the right to exist except as explicitly allowed by law.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership" That seems circular.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    Rephrasing that point: if a corporation was really merely a group of individuals working collectively, why invent another word rather then reuse one of the many existing ones?
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      You could ask the same question about the words "collective", "co-op", or "partnership".
abstractbill 17y ago
Calling a corporation "people acting together", or just "a group of people" downplays the fact that corporations are indeed made up of many people but with only a very few of those people able to exert any real control over the whole entity.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  Most large assemblies of people are like that. Unions are like that. Political action groups are like that. Underground movements are like that. The impracticalities of having everyone agree on everything means that whenever you have a large assembly of people you must hand over control to decision-makers. Shareholders do have ultimate control over corporations, by the way. But shareholders, generally, would rather sell their stock--or fall asleep at the wheel--then exercise corporate governance. But that's besides the point. You are downplaying the fact that the Constitution clearly grants us right to assembly, in the same amendment that grants us free speech, and an assembly of people has the right to speech just as much as a person does. According to jurisprudence, the government may only curtail these rights with laws that meet a "strict scrutiny" standard: they must meet a compelling government interest, they must be narrowly tailored, and they must be close to minimally restrictive. McCain-Feingold does not meet the second and third standards, and 4 justices think it does not meet the first.
  - lmkg 17y ago
    But, with a political coalition, people join the coalition in order to promote the mission of the coalition. With a corporation, people join the corporation in order to get paid, not in order to promote the viewpoints of the corporation. When you conflate the two objectives of profit and social decision-making, you're implicitly encouraging people to sell out their values. That's not democratic. You are also downplaying the difference between a group of people and a corporation. A corporation is when group of people place some of their rights and responsibilities into an artificial entity, in order to promote its own interests and shield the creators from a certain amount of responsibility. Why must this political-economic golem be given the right to free speech? My contention is that the right to free speech of the creators and shareholders is completely sufficient. Giving the controlling shareholders access to non-controlling capital to promote their own viewpoints is troublesome because it causes several interests to conflict that don't need to.

crux_ 17y ago

The limited liability granted to corporations is an excellent reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as a person. After all, they don't have the same responsibilities. But a more basic reason is that a corporation is not a person! It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership -- it is its own thing and there is no inherent reason whatsoever why it should have any rights at all, including the right to exist except as explicitly allowed by law.

Semiapies 17y ago
"It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership" That seems circular.
- crux_ 17y ago
  Rephrasing that point: if a corporation was really merely a group of individuals working collectively, why invent another word rather then reuse one of the many existing ones?
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    You could ask the same question about the words "collective", "co-op", or "partnership".

abstractbill 17y ago

Calling a corporation "people acting together", or just "a group of people" downplays the fact that corporations are indeed made up of many people but with only a very few of those people able to exert any real control over the whole entity.

cynicalkane 17y ago
Most large assemblies of people are like that. Unions are like that. Political action groups are like that. Underground movements are like that. The impracticalities of having everyone agree on everything means that whenever you have a large assembly of people you must hand over control to decision-makers. Shareholders do have ultimate control over corporations, by the way. But shareholders, generally, would rather sell their stock--or fall asleep at the wheel--then exercise corporate governance. But that's besides the point. You are downplaying the fact that the Constitution clearly grants us right to assembly, in the same amendment that grants us free speech, and an assembly of people has the right to speech just as much as a person does. According to jurisprudence, the government may only curtail these rights with laws that meet a "strict scrutiny" standard: they must meet a compelling government interest, they must be narrowly tailored, and they must be close to minimally restrictive. McCain-Feingold does not meet the second and third standards, and 4 justices think it does not meet the first.
- lmkg 17y ago
  But, with a political coalition, people join the coalition in order to promote the mission of the coalition. With a corporation, people join the corporation in order to get paid, not in order to promote the viewpoints of the corporation. When you conflate the two objectives of profit and social decision-making, you're implicitly encouraging people to sell out their values. That's not democratic. You are also downplaying the difference between a group of people and a corporation. A corporation is when group of people place some of their rights and responsibilities into an artificial entity, in order to promote its own interests and shield the creators from a certain amount of responsibility. Why must this political-economic golem be given the right to free speech? My contention is that the right to free speech of the creators and shareholders is completely sufficient. Giving the controlling shareholders access to non-controlling capital to promote their own viewpoints is troublesome because it causes several interests to conflict that don't need to.