2 ms·
As I understand it, to allow certain types of lobbying or something companies lobbied for, there's a ruling in the US that companies are people in some contexts
by mcintyre1994 10y ago
As I understand it, to allow certain types of lobbying or something companies lobbied for, there's a ruling in the US that companies are people in some contexts.
- jimnotgym 10y agoWhilst corporations are entities apart from their directors, I find this being twisted to mean they are people incredibly distasteful.
- mcintyre1994 10y agoI understand it's probably overly simplistic but can I ask why it's distasteful? The concept is referred to as corporate personhood so I'm not sure why referring to companies as people in the relevant contexts is distasteful as opposed to simplistic.
- cgriswald 10y agoThey are not considered people. They are considered persons. In a legal context, a person is not a human being, but any entity to which rights or responsibilities (also read: liabilities) can be attached. No court has said they are human beings. And they do not have all human rights. They have only those rights which law and case law have put upon them.
- jimnotgym 10y agoYou are right the term is person. And they do not have all human rights. I am no expert in the US constitution either. However I still feel that a corporation argueing for rights to free speech (like Facebook here) is not in the spirit of the contstitution. Free speech is a human right not a corporate one