6 ms·
Sure. Just get the corporate entity to say a single word. No representatives. No notes. No proxies. No robots. No automated voices. The actual corporate legal e
by rs23296008n1 7y ago
Sure. Just get the corporate entity to say a single word. No representatives. No notes. No proxies. No robots. No automated voices. The actual corporate legal entity. Not even the CEO. No clever stand-ins with same name.
Just one mouthed, audible word to confirm the entity can qualify for speech. Then we can consider "free speech" for that entity.
I can only dream this would hold up even as I know there are likely dozens of loopholes to render it irrelevant. Not to mention specific exceptions and allowances already in law.
- muro 7y agoA mute person has the right too :)
- rahuldottech 7y agoA mute person can write. Or sign. A corporate entity doesn't communicate in any way. Because... It obviously cannot.
- dnautics 7y agoFreedom of speech exists so that entities are presumed to be able to say things without interference from the government. An absolutist stance such as yours results in things like governments disincorporating newspapers that publish politically unfavorable content simply because the newspaper is s corporation and it can't itself physically speak (or write something, or publish something) without a human intermediary.
- mLuby 7y agoI like where your head's at, but guardians speak on behalf of minors, lawyers speak on behalf of clients, and representatives speak on behalf of their electorate (in theory), so executives speaking on behalf of groups of employees isn't much different.
- simiones 7y agoOn behalf of groups of investors, perhaps, not employees.
- Misdicorl 7y agoHow do you handle the us government censoring newspapers, Wikipedia, etcetc if this is your demand?
- rootusrootus 7y ago...
- strictnein 7y agoNewspapers do not have a specific call-out. The printing press does, which was simply the most advanced method of spreading your speech at the time. The founders wanted the ability to print what they wanted and, just as importantly, not be forced by the government to print things they didn't want to.
- Misdicorl 7y ago> Wikipedia can fall back on the individual editors' rights Can it? Then why couldn't any other company similarly fall back on to the rights of their employees. e.g. whoever is compiling the data being sold in the telecom case.
- rs23296008n1 7y agoEmployees would be seen as acting on behalf of the corporate entity. So really they are proxy and/or talking for the corporate entity. Not themselves. Most random employees have no usefully unrestricted free speech when their contract often deliberately punishes them if they say the wrong word. Those people working for companies shut up about their work unless they are willing to go whistleblower / they reveal a workplace safety issue / have legal advice etc.
- mannykannot 7y agoIn the US, freedom of the press is explicily stated in the 1st. amendment to the constitution. It does not depend on any legal theory of publishing corporations being people.
- gumby 7y agoCorporations are simply machines operated by humans much as an automobile, lawnmower, or piano is. None of those items have rights either.
- buckminster 7y agoFor better or worse, reams of corporate law exist to make this not true. Your piano, for example, can't employ me.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoA piano isn't liable when it falls out of a window and crushes you, Loony Toons style.
- briandear 7y agoThis would apply to political parties as well? Those are corporations as well — spending billions “speaking.”
- criddell 7y agoWhat about the flip side of that. If the NYT prints a slanderous story about you, can you sue the deep-pocketed times, or do you have to go after the underpaid reporter?