4 ms·

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the rig

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United held. Beyond that, you're just plain wrong. Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. If your neighbor's dog escapes and bites you, can you sue the dog? Of course not. You sue the neighbor, the person responsible. If your neighbor kills your dog, can your dog's puppies sue your neighbor? Of course not. Again, non-persons cannot be party to legal actions. A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person, corporations have rights. They don't have all of the same rights as people, that's why I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons". Legally, they are different concepts.

mtbcoder 11y ago
> The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.
- LordKano 11y ago
  A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation. That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold? The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.
alanwatts 11y ago
>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons" They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.
- LordKano 11y ago
  People is a plural form of person. Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being". An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation." Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction. A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on. A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it. So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Legal and common definitions are often at odds. Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not. The law defines personhood for biological entities too. One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person. This is nothing new. If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.
imron 11y ago
> A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.
kefka 11y ago
> Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath. Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one. Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola You want more?

mtbcoder 11y ago

> The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

LordKano 11y ago
A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation. That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold? The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.

alanwatts 11y ago

>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons" They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.

LordKano 11y ago
People is a plural form of person. Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- alanwatts 11y ago
  The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being". An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation." Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction. A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on. A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it. So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Legal and common definitions are often at odds. Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not. The law defines personhood for biological entities too. One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person. This is nothing new. If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.

imron 11y ago

> A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.

kefka 11y ago

> Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath. Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one. Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola You want more?