4 ms·

the US constitution only applies to US persons. someone living in china doesn't actually have freedom of speech protected by our constitution.

pjc50 8y ago
What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation definitely does have free speech rights, per Citizens United.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rlucas 8y ago
  Interesting, sort of a Spolsky-esque "leaky abstraction." It's easy-ish to reason about rights of corporations when they are groups of your own citizens. When you poke through the veil to ultimate beneficial ownership it's a lot less obviously easy to reason about.
- nostromo 8y ago
  No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that? Edit: link please?
    - nostromo 8y ago
      Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
        learc83 8y ago
        No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization. The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        I'm not saying that's not the logic of CU, but that is exactly the fallacy of composition.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish. It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations. But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions. By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.
- pvg 8y ago
  Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Yes, serious people are really making that argument. > It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Can you link some serious people making that argument?
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180330165631904_Travel%20Ban%203.0%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Final%20Submission%20Version%20.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180... > The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government > The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship > The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability > Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?
diminoten 8y ago
Legally yes, morally no. Citizenship doesn't grant/revoke human rights, and freedom of speech is a human right.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Yes. The basics in the Declaration if Independence are general statements about what rights all humans are given.
munk-a 8y ago
Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.
- learc83 8y ago
  The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision. Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.

pjc50 8y ago

What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation definitely does have free speech rights, per Citizens United.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rlucas 8y ago
Interesting, sort of a Spolsky-esque "leaky abstraction." It's easy-ish to reason about rights of corporations when they are groups of your own citizens. When you poke through the veil to ultimate beneficial ownership it's a lot less obviously easy to reason about.
nostromo 8y ago
No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that? Edit: link please?
  - nostromo 8y ago
    Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
      - learc83 8y ago
        No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization. The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      I'm not saying that's not the logic of CU, but that is exactly the fallacy of composition.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish. It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations. But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions. By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.

pvg 8y ago
Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Yes, serious people are really making that argument. > It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Can you link some serious people making that argument?
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180330165631904_Travel%20Ban%203.0%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Final%20Submission%20Version%20.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180... > The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government > The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship > The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability > Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?

diminoten 8y ago

Legally yes, morally no. Citizenship doesn't grant/revoke human rights, and freedom of speech is a human right.

humanrebar 8y ago
Yes. The basics in the Declaration if Independence are general statements about what rights all humans are given.

munk-a 8y ago

Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.

learc83 8y ago
The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision. Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.