4 ms·

Corporate speech is a very tricky and nuanced topic. Here's a simple issue it brings up: if a corporation has a right to free speech, does it really? Suppose I

Corporate speech is a very tricky and nuanced topic. Here's a simple issue it brings up: if a corporation has a right to free speech, does it really? Suppose I'm a shareholder in a corporation. That corporation has some legal duties with respect to looking out for my interests; can I use that to force the corporation to engage in political speech? If the corporation backs a candidate who will negatively impact shareholder value, or insufficiently supports a candidate who will increase shareholder value, should I be able to sue the corporation over using its "free speech" right inappropriately?

jahewson 10y ago
Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations). You can sue whoever (or whatever corporation) you like. There's no such thing as a "free speech" defence against a private lawsuit.
- bitwize 10y ago
  Tell that to Zoe Quinn, who got her restraining order forbidding Eron Gjoni from speaking about her publicly overturned -- on free speech grounds. (I think the Massachusetts court made the wrong decision in that case.)
  - jahewson 10y ago
    No, a restraining order is not a private matter, it's the government restricting an individual's speech. Exactly the sort of thing to which "free speech" applies. No supprises here.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  The concern, though, is that if you grant a corporation unlimited speech powers, does it really have "freedom"? Does it make sense to talk about a "right" to do something you're legally forced to do?
  - jahewson 10y ago
    I don't think that's a concern at all. Free speech is not a problem. The problem is that the Supreme Court has decided that "money is speech", and so corporate spending cannot be regulated. That's what needs fixing.
    - bitwize 10y ago
      The Supreme Court did not strike down the campaign-finance portions of McCain-Feingold, only those provisions forbidding corporations and unions from disseminating certain types of media messages before an election. So money is no more speech post-Citizens United than it was before; i.e., inasmuch as it costs money to produce television, film, or video.
bitwize 10y ago
The duties of a corporation's executives and officers to its owners are contractual and are subject to contract law, which the 1A doesn't apply to. I'm a bit surprised that liberals think the First Amendment's right to free speech cannot be exercised collectively, whereas the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms can only be exercised collectively. Bit of an inconsistency there.

jahewson 10y ago

Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations). You can sue whoever (or whatever corporation) you like. There's no such thing as a "free speech" defence against a private lawsuit.

bitwize 10y ago
Tell that to Zoe Quinn, who got her restraining order forbidding Eron Gjoni from speaking about her publicly overturned -- on free speech grounds. (I think the Massachusetts court made the wrong decision in that case.)
- jahewson 10y ago
  No, a restraining order is not a private matter, it's the government restricting an individual's speech. Exactly the sort of thing to which "free speech" applies. No supprises here.
ubernostrum 10y ago
The concern, though, is that if you grant a corporation unlimited speech powers, does it really have "freedom"? Does it make sense to talk about a "right" to do something you're legally forced to do?
- jahewson 10y ago
  I don't think that's a concern at all. Free speech is not a problem. The problem is that the Supreme Court has decided that "money is speech", and so corporate spending cannot be regulated. That's what needs fixing.
  - bitwize 10y ago
    The Supreme Court did not strike down the campaign-finance portions of McCain-Feingold, only those provisions forbidding corporations and unions from disseminating certain types of media messages before an election. So money is no more speech post-Citizens United than it was before; i.e., inasmuch as it costs money to produce television, film, or video.

bitwize 10y ago

The duties of a corporation's executives and officers to its owners are contractual and are subject to contract law, which the 1A doesn't apply to. I'm a bit surprised that liberals think the First Amendment's right to free speech cannot be exercised collectively, whereas the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms can only be exercised collectively. Bit of an inconsistency there.