5 ms·

The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent pretty specifically addressed that issue: organizations (like the NYT) are protected by the First Amendment. Also, jus

by bhupy 6y ago

The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent pretty specifically addressed that issue: organizations (like the NYT) are protected by the First Amendment. Also, just taking a step back, the Constitution makes no mention of a difference between individuals and groups. If you and I were to group together to advocate for something, our rights to advocate for that thing don't magically disappear. In fact, by this logic, we don't actually have a free press, because journalistic outlets aren't individuals, they are organizations that the Constitution doesn't protect.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent does, in terms of defamation. That may not apply in other situations, specifically in federal crimes. The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. They may not in this case, but I wouldn't assume they would either. They also differentiate based on other facts, which may differentiate any future cases. We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. When? To my knowledge, there are no major landmark decisions which hold that an association of individuals may be treated differently from individuals; especially as it relates to the First Amendment. We even have a precedent in Citizens United v FEC which reinforces the consistency between individuals and organizations under First Amendment jurisprudence. > We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts. The established cases also include criminal acts, as was the case when the Ku Klux Klan advocated for (criminal) violence. The courts have held that even advocating for illegal acts at some time in the future is protected (Hess).
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment, but there are many examples where individuals and organizations, or even organizations in different levels of government, are held to different standards under the law. The standards for HOAs versus local government is a good example. Some states require that HOAs enforce code equally, but will permit local government to enforce it unequally because local government has relatively limited resources. The court may consider a media corporation to be identical to an individual in terms of First Amendment cases, but I wouldn't be certain about that. The established cases do include criminal acts, but those were challenged based on the unconstitutionality of state law, and were in different crcumstances. If DT were charged with inciting a riot by the District of Columbia, then Hess is great precedent, but I don't think it would be great in a government case against a media corporation. The government likely wouldn't bring criminal charges against a specific individual either, which changes things. If they seek monetary damages and an injunction, or even just an injunction, the precedent used in Hess may not apply.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      > There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment Citizens United. It ruled that a law banning corporations (and other kinds of associations such as non-profits and labor unions) from making campaign contributions was an unconstitutional abrogation of their First Amendment rights. When people fulminate against the idea of corporate personhood, what they're really fulminating against is the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights. Which should tell you just how likely SCOTUS is to distinguish between private individuals and corporations when it comes to First Amendment rights: not at all.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        I'm not so sure about that. There's a big difference between whether corporations have a first amendment rights and can make campaign contributions and whether their speech is protected in the same ways as the speech of individuals. To be fair, even individual speech may or may not be protected depending on the circumstances, so corporate speech may also not be protected in certain circumstances even if SCOTUS always treats speech by individuals and by corporations the same.
mindslight 6y ago
The New York Times is a corporation with a government-granted charter that grants it things like limited liability. It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights. And yes, I agree that we don't actually have a free press. Given our microkernel government, institutions like the New York Times are better seen as part of the de facto government than independent organizations speaking truth to power - eg marketing the Iraq war. This relationship is easier to see with say Equifax than NYT, but the dynamic is similar.
- sneak 6y ago
  Important to remember that corporations, like all groups, have no mouths, no hands, and cannot act. All corporate actions, all corporate speech, is carried out by individual humans. Group rights are individual human rights, as groups have no brain and cannot act.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Except that there is a distinction between an individual performing an action of their own volition, and an individual performing an action to obtain income. The first represents the true will of the individual, while the latter only requires their desire to have a roof over their head. And as I said, the entity of the NYT is afforded protections that individuals are not. If individual rights are supremely important to the individuals making up the NYT, the individuals involved are still free to act outside of their corporate shell.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      New York Times employees are employed at-will. We're not talking about minimum wage workers publishing content under duress here, we're talking about journalists and editors who generally join organizations they believe in. Tucker Carlson doesn't go on air and say the things he says because he's forced to, he does it because he wants to. Full disclosure: my wife works for the New York Times.

by bhupy 6y ago

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent does, in terms of defamation. That may not apply in other situations, specifically in federal crimes. The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. They may not in this case, but I wouldn't assume they would either. They also differentiate based on other facts, which may differentiate any future cases. We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts.

bhupy 6y ago
> The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. When? To my knowledge, there are no major landmark decisions which hold that an association of individuals may be treated differently from individuals; especially as it relates to the First Amendment. We even have a precedent in Citizens United v FEC which reinforces the consistency between individuals and organizations under First Amendment jurisprudence. > We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts. The established cases also include criminal acts, as was the case when the Ku Klux Klan advocated for (criminal) violence. The courts have held that even advocating for illegal acts at some time in the future is protected (Hess).
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment, but there are many examples where individuals and organizations, or even organizations in different levels of government, are held to different standards under the law. The standards for HOAs versus local government is a good example. Some states require that HOAs enforce code equally, but will permit local government to enforce it unequally because local government has relatively limited resources. The court may consider a media corporation to be identical to an individual in terms of First Amendment cases, but I wouldn't be certain about that. The established cases do include criminal acts, but those were challenged based on the unconstitutionality of state law, and were in different crcumstances. If DT were charged with inciting a riot by the District of Columbia, then Hess is great precedent, but I don't think it would be great in a government case against a media corporation. The government likely wouldn't bring criminal charges against a specific individual either, which changes things. If they seek monetary damages and an injunction, or even just an injunction, the precedent used in Hess may not apply.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment Citizens United. It ruled that a law banning corporations (and other kinds of associations such as non-profits and labor unions) from making campaign contributions was an unconstitutional abrogation of their First Amendment rights. When people fulminate against the idea of corporate personhood, what they're really fulminating against is the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights. Which should tell you just how likely SCOTUS is to distinguish between private individuals and corporations when it comes to First Amendment rights: not at all.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. There's a big difference between whether corporations have a first amendment rights and can make campaign contributions and whether their speech is protected in the same ways as the speech of individuals. To be fair, even individual speech may or may not be protected depending on the circumstances, so corporate speech may also not be protected in certain circumstances even if SCOTUS always treats speech by individuals and by corporations the same.

mindslight 6y ago

The New York Times is a corporation with a government-granted charter that grants it things like limited liability. It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights. And yes, I agree that we don't actually have a free press. Given our microkernel government, institutions like the New York Times are better seen as part of the de facto government than independent organizations speaking truth to power - eg marketing the Iraq war. This relationship is easier to see with say Equifax than NYT, but the dynamic is similar.

sneak 6y ago
Important to remember that corporations, like all groups, have no mouths, no hands, and cannot act. All corporate actions, all corporate speech, is carried out by individual humans. Group rights are individual human rights, as groups have no brain and cannot act.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Except that there is a distinction between an individual performing an action of their own volition, and an individual performing an action to obtain income. The first represents the true will of the individual, while the latter only requires their desire to have a roof over their head. And as I said, the entity of the NYT is afforded protections that individuals are not. If individual rights are supremely important to the individuals making up the NYT, the individuals involved are still free to act outside of their corporate shell.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    New York Times employees are employed at-will. We're not talking about minimum wage workers publishing content under duress here, we're talking about journalists and editors who generally join organizations they believe in. Tucker Carlson doesn't go on air and say the things he says because he's forced to, he does it because he wants to. Full disclosure: my wife works for the New York Times.