3 ms·

For those criticizing Warren's tweet: remember that the idea that the first amendment applies to companies is a legal doctrine that was created in the 20th cent

by elil17 6y ago

For those criticizing Warren's tweet: remember that the idea that the first amendment applies to companies is a legal doctrine that was created in the 20th century (edit: specifically in a couple of Supreme Court cases in 1975 and 1976), not something inherent to the constitution. Saying that it's not Amazon's place to participate in politics is a view that I think most of her constituents would share.

busterarm 6y ago
Legal doctrines are rarely invented overnight and what you've said here is demonstrably untrue. Precedent (regardless of nation of origin) is probably the second most powerful source of laws, right after Natural Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- elil17 6y ago
  Corporate personhood =/= corporate free speech. In the very same Wikipedia article you linked it discusses Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (1906), which establishes that corporations, while they are "people" for the purposes of contracts, are not entitled to 14th amendment protections. Fast forward to Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the supreme court unanimously upholds the common law that the first amendment does not apply to corporations. The court suddenly reverses in 76' with Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that corporations held some of the protections of the Constitution. Which ones was not so clearly defined. First amendment protection is now so defined, but that does not make it brand new legal doctrine. It's based on long standing legal precedent. It is a clarification of law. You're making Valentine v. Chrestensen's decision much more broad than it actually is. Specifically, SCOTUS "ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen). Commercial speech has a very specific definition in law. It's about advertising. The decisions later about Hobby Lobby have very little to do with Valentine v Chrestensen nor Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, because Hobby Lobby's case was not about commercial speech. Same with Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because they were about political speech.
monocularvision 6y ago
Do you believe the New York Times should enjoy the first amendment?

by elil17 6y ago

busterarm 6y ago

Legal doctrines are rarely invented overnight and what you've said here is demonstrably untrue. Precedent (regardless of nation of origin) is probably the second most powerful source of laws, right after Natural Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

elil17 6y ago
Corporate personhood =/= corporate free speech. In the very same Wikipedia article you linked it discusses Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (1906), which establishes that corporations, while they are "people" for the purposes of contracts, are not entitled to 14th amendment protections. Fast forward to Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the supreme court unanimously upholds the common law that the first amendment does not apply to corporations. The court suddenly reverses in 76' with Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
- busterarm 6y ago
  I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that corporations held some of the protections of the Constitution. Which ones was not so clearly defined. First amendment protection is now so defined, but that does not make it brand new legal doctrine. It's based on long standing legal precedent. It is a clarification of law. You're making Valentine v. Chrestensen's decision much more broad than it actually is. Specifically, SCOTUS "ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen). Commercial speech has a very specific definition in law. It's about advertising. The decisions later about Hobby Lobby have very little to do with Valentine v Chrestensen nor Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, because Hobby Lobby's case was not about commercial speech. Same with Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because they were about political speech.

monocularvision 6y ago

Do you believe the New York Times should enjoy the first amendment?