3 ms·

Well, well. It's harder and harder every day to argue with the legal opinion offered by former SCOTUS justice Kennedy, which seemed hilariously corrupt at the

by RNCTX 6y ago

Well, well. It's harder and harder every day to argue with the legal opinion offered by former SCOTUS justice Kennedy, which seemed hilariously corrupt at the time, that corporations are effectively people. A defining trait of an awful lot of people is that they accuse what they're guilty of. In this case, Facebook accusing other websites of trademark violations is the very definition of hypocrisy. Facebook in particular, but Twitter as well, are absolutely littered with t-shirt vendors selling other people's logos and brand names, logarithmically generated with ad data. If you fill out your movies, music, and books "likes" as they tell you to do, within 2 days tops you'll be able to buy a Pink Floyd t-shirt from virtually anyone on the planet... except Roger Waters or David Gilmour. The fact that Facebook refuses all search indexes makes policing Facebook's infringement on the copyrights of others impossible. At least with Napster any musician could log in and see how many users were giving their content away for free. Not so on Facebook, you can't ever know how many pirated logos of yours that Facebook sold.

classified 6y ago
> logarithmically generated I think you got something mixed up here.
- skanderbm 6y ago
  an exponentially growing number of tshirts perhaps ?
- wand3r 6y ago
  ********************************* *************************************** ******************************************* *********************************************** ************************************************* *************************************************** *************************************************** ****************************************************
- RNCTX 6y ago
  You got me, it's early yet ;)
CSMastermind 6y ago
> Well, well. It's harder and harder every day to argue with the legal opinion offered by former SCOTUS justice Kennedy, which seemed hilariously corrupt at the time, that corporations are effectively people. I hate this meme. That's not what the decision said. First "corporate personhood" means that corporations are allowed to sue and be sued like they were individuals. Along with being taxed and regulated. Citizens United, the decision you are referencing did not involve this concept. Rather it said that the rights of individuals to free speech is not diminished if they act collectively as opposed to individually. If I'm allowed to say, "RNCTX doesn't understand the issue" and so is my friend, then us saying it together doesn't make it illegal because we acted in coordination. Likewise if I'm allowed to purchase a billboard that says it and so is my friend then there should be no issue with us pooling our money to purchase one together. And that's what Citizens United said. Corporations are one such mechanism through which we could pool our money to purchase that advertisement but others such as unions, non-profits, and all other forms of collective groups are covered. It's actually a very common sense extension of the first amendment.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  Corporations are "people" because their owners are people and people get to work together and corporations are how they work together. Corporations are allowed free speech because their owners are allowed free speech as a group; the corporation is the tool for organizing it. Corporations are not allowed to vote, because people are not allowed to vote as a group. This is not new. This is not Kennedy's fault. This has been the case since the beginning of the United States, and it has been Supreme Court precedent since 1819, when the New Hampshire Legislature said they could take over a private university because it was a corporation, and therefore had no rights, and they could take its property and change its rules at will, ant the court said No. (Dartmouth College v. Woodward) If corporations were not treated as people and not afforded civil rights, it would be legal for the government to censor newspapers at will because they have no First Amendment rights (News Corp, NY Times, etc are corporations). It would be legal for the President to order a warrantless search of the DNC headquarters, for the DNC is a corporation, and the Fourth Amendment would not apply. It would be legal to impose a trillion dollar fine on Planned Parenthood, a corporation, for any minor paperwork infraction, for the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines would not apply. It would be legal for the government to sue them for this infraction without a jury, for the Seventh Amendment would not apply.
hedora 6y ago
“Corporations are people” was first inserted into the Supreme Court’s findings by an railroad baron that was for some reason acting as the court reporter.

by RNCTX 6y ago

classified 6y ago

> logarithmically generated I think you got something mixed up here.

skanderbm 6y ago
an exponentially growing number of tshirts perhaps ?
wand3r 6y ago
********************************* *************************************** ******************************************* *********************************************** ************************************************* *************************************************** *************************************************** ****************************************************
RNCTX 6y ago
You got me, it's early yet ;)

CSMastermind 6y ago

> Well, well. It's harder and harder every day to argue with the legal opinion offered by former SCOTUS justice Kennedy, which seemed hilariously corrupt at the time, that corporations are effectively people. I hate this meme. That's not what the decision said. First "corporate personhood" means that corporations are allowed to sue and be sued like they were individuals. Along with being taxed and regulated. Citizens United, the decision you are referencing did not involve this concept. Rather it said that the rights of individuals to free speech is not diminished if they act collectively as opposed to individually. If I'm allowed to say, "RNCTX doesn't understand the issue" and so is my friend, then us saying it together doesn't make it illegal because we acted in coordination. Likewise if I'm allowed to purchase a billboard that says it and so is my friend then there should be no issue with us pooling our money to purchase one together. And that's what Citizens United said. Corporations are one such mechanism through which we could pool our money to purchase that advertisement but others such as unions, non-profits, and all other forms of collective groups are covered. It's actually a very common sense extension of the first amendment.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
Corporations are "people" because their owners are people and people get to work together and corporations are how they work together. Corporations are allowed free speech because their owners are allowed free speech as a group; the corporation is the tool for organizing it. Corporations are not allowed to vote, because people are not allowed to vote as a group. This is not new. This is not Kennedy's fault. This has been the case since the beginning of the United States, and it has been Supreme Court precedent since 1819, when the New Hampshire Legislature said they could take over a private university because it was a corporation, and therefore had no rights, and they could take its property and change its rules at will, ant the court said No. (Dartmouth College v. Woodward) If corporations were not treated as people and not afforded civil rights, it would be legal for the government to censor newspapers at will because they have no First Amendment rights (News Corp, NY Times, etc are corporations). It would be legal for the President to order a warrantless search of the DNC headquarters, for the DNC is a corporation, and the Fourth Amendment would not apply. It would be legal to impose a trillion dollar fine on Planned Parenthood, a corporation, for any minor paperwork infraction, for the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines would not apply. It would be legal for the government to sue them for this infraction without a jury, for the Seventh Amendment would not apply.

hedora 6y ago

“Corporations are people” was first inserted into the Supreme Court’s findings by an railroad baron that was for some reason acting as the court reporter.