8 ms·

Not really, no. It just requires recognising that corporations are not people and thus don’t deserve freedom of speech protection. especially big corporations,

by tomp 6y ago

Not really, no. It just requires recognising that corporations are not people and thus don’t deserve freedom of speech protection. especially big corporations, which should definitely be considered “serving the public good” and therefore under even greater scrutiny.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are just ways of organizing people, and those people do have free speech rights. I’m not sure how this could be changed without a constitutional amendment. Unless you have another suggestion?
- tomp 6y ago
  Personally I’d try by enforcing an exchange - limited liability status for speech restrictions - that way people can still “organize in corporations” - unlimited liability ones - but if they want extra privileges, they have to give up some of their rights. If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment. Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  Use the laws on the books to make these companies public trusts, as was done to the large trusts in the 20th century. If there is real competition on these platforms, if there were many app stores, then this wouldn't be an issue. These five or six companies have too much consolidated power.
  - kemitchell 6y ago
    Can you provide an example of a public trust from the 20th century? I'm aware of "trust busting" in an earlier time, but not nationalizations, except, predominantly, in time of war.
    - tarboreus 6y ago
      A late comment, but Bell is the ur-example of this, and a huge, almost ridiculous, amount of innovation came out of Bell Labs.
  - likeclockwork 6y ago
    You want to nationalize social media and smartphone OSes? Fine. You're over private property? Okay, me too. But let's handle these requests in the order they arrived, that's fair isn't it? We'll get to social media right after we nationalize health care and energy.

by tomp 6y ago

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are just ways of organizing people, and those people do have free speech rights. I’m not sure how this could be changed without a constitutional amendment. Unless you have another suggestion?

tomp 6y ago
Personally I’d try by enforcing an exchange - limited liability status for speech restrictions - that way people can still “organize in corporations” - unlimited liability ones - but if they want extra privileges, they have to give up some of their rights. If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment. Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.
tarboreus 6y ago
Use the laws on the books to make these companies public trusts, as was done to the large trusts in the 20th century. If there is real competition on these platforms, if there were many app stores, then this wouldn't be an issue. These five or six companies have too much consolidated power.
- kemitchell 6y ago
  Can you provide an example of a public trust from the 20th century? I'm aware of "trust busting" in an earlier time, but not nationalizations, except, predominantly, in time of war.
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    A late comment, but Bell is the ur-example of this, and a huge, almost ridiculous, amount of innovation came out of Bell Labs.
- likeclockwork 6y ago
  You want to nationalize social media and smartphone OSes? Fine. You're over private property? Okay, me too. But let's handle these requests in the order they arrived, that's fair isn't it? We'll get to social media right after we nationalize health care and energy.