4 ms·
This is a good reminder that "Corporations aren't people!" is something of a know-nothing argument, and also didn't suddenly spring into relevance with Citizens
by twoodfin 11y ago
This is a good reminder that "Corporations aren't people!" is something of a know-nothing argument, and also didn't suddenly spring into relevance with Citizens United.
Of course Apple can invoke the First Amendment just like you or I could to avoid compelled speech. They may win or lose that argument, but it's not going to be thrown out just because they're a corporation.
- Zigurd 11y agoOr you can look at it this way: Since we've gone down that road, let's squeeze as much good out of a bad decision as we can. By any means necessary.
- jeffdavis 11y agoI feel that the anger about the citizens united decision is misdirected. People speak and act. The fact that they do so on behalf of a corporation is not of primary importance. By saying that there's "corporate speech" and "personal speech", and that the latter is protected and the former not, is essentially the same reasoning that allows corporations to commit crimes with no personal crimes taking place.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jayess 11y agoSo media companies (corporations) shouldn't have freedom of speech?
- BlackFly 11y agoThe first amendment argument can be made notwithstanding that corporations are not people. Forcing developers to implement and sign code goes against their first amendment rights.
- harryh 11y agoNo developers are being forced to do anything. Any Apple employee who feels like it is more than welcome to quit. Otherwise, they're required to do the job their employer asks them to do which, it turns out, might include modifying iOS on a court order.
- BlackFly 11y agoI'm not sure if you are being disingenuous with me or you just haven't thought out your argument. You are essentially claiming that a person's rights aren't violated because they still have a choice between expressing a concept in code or losing their livelihood. This is analagous to saying that a person's fifth amendment rights are not violated because they have a choice between answering questions and going to jail. This is the precise definition of coercion, which is exactly what the US government is forbidden to do except in very limited circumstances. Furthermore, their employer is not the government so the ultimatum does not exist without coercion. Their manager is a human being who is forced to give them orders or fire them, which is again a first amendment violation. They get their orders from their manager, who was coerced, etc.
- harryh 11y ago> You are essentially claiming that a person's rights aren't violated because they still have a choice between expressing a concept in code > or losing their livelihood. I write code for a living(1). I'm pretty sure that if I walked in to work tomorrow and told my boss I wasn't going to write any more code then he would tell me pretty soon thereafter that was fine but he was going to stop paying me to come to work every day. That's not coercion. That's what a job is. It's interesting, by the way, that you bring up the 5th amendment. You have it exactly backwards. The government has wide latitude to compel testimony at a trial. If you witness a crime, for example, you aren't allowed to refuse to testify about what you saw because of your first amendment rights. The 5th amendment outlines one of the very few exceptions to the government's ability to compel speech in the context of criminal investigations. 1. Strictly speaking I'm more of a manager these days. But, for the purposes of clarity, let's pretend I'm talking about the "me" from 5 years ago.