3 ms·
> not to take away the rights of their owners Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations. The individual owners can keep
by brandonmenc 6y ago
> not to take away the rights of their owners
Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations.
The individual owners can keep their individual rights.
- smt88 6y agoThe Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be both a commercial enterprise and a holder of 1st Amendment rights, but that's not what the law says. And anyway, it would be an impossible line to draw.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoIt would be no more impossible than having a non-profit, it would just require a new legal status.
- smt88 6y agoNon-profits are a tax status, not a legal status.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoYou say potato, I say potahto... Turns out tax status is enforced by laws. Weird, I know. "well akshually...". just don't.
- brandonmenc 6y ago> corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't forbidding them from censoring user content orthogonal to this?
- smt88 6y agoI was responding only to a single previous post[1]. If you think it's out of context, take it up with them, I guess. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341525