4 ms·

No, rights are for people. Corporations are not groups of individuals but intangible logical entities that groups of individuals use to conduct business. By you

by _8j50 5y ago

No, rights are for people. Corporations are not groups of individuals but intangible logical entities that groups of individuals use to conduct business. By your logic, revoking the incorporation of a company is equivalent to murder as well? The individuals that own Disney are free to spend their profits however they wish or speak whatever they want like every individual. The ability to use their privilege of being able to conduct business and hire employees to an arbitrary end is not protected. The CEO can say "I hate the president" but the company can be restricted from publishing material to that effect directly or by contracting out the publication to someone else. Especially publicly traded companies like Disney are not making decisions on behalf of every or majority if their shareholders which changes hands frequently. Any speech made by the company does not directly represent the will of the owners but the execution of the business in it's priviledged and regulated capacity under it's incorporation title and public exchange listing.

SauciestGNU 5y ago
Quite frankly, you're completely wrong from a legal standpoint. We have a famous decision from our highest court (one that I very much disagree with by the way) which establishes corporate personhood and the right to free speech for corporations (and establishes that money is speech). As long as Citizens United stands as good law this action can be seen only as a frontal assault on free speech as it is explicitly defined by the supreme court.
- _8j50 5y ago
  I know about citizens united and I disagree with it, but from what I understand it is not beyond challenge as in the court has changed a bit since then and a challenge by Disney in this case is the only thing short of a constitutional amendment that will resolve the debacle. The law as it is written does not support the citizens united decision, it is judicial law making at best. > Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ... The Citizens united ruling stipulates to wrong things, first that spending money is speech (it is most certainly not!) and that this speech was restricted, it was not, individuals have every freedom to make election contributions, their freedom to make the supposed speech was not abridged. A regulated entity that is not a person was ... well regulated. The supreme court lacks the authority to declare arbitrary things a person. Are dogs people too? Is restricting them from barking abridging their freedom of speech? Does congress have a right to pass a law requiring dog owners to take measures to keep their dogs from barking loud in public? It also introduces an unresolvable conflict in that organized religion can influence politics because spending is speech and religious corporations are supposedly people with rights to make donations as they see fit. Congress can't pass a law that establishes or favors a specific religion yet congress can accept campaign donations by the wealthiest religious organizations (not humans) that donate funds to favor candidates that back their religious views, so is congress passing laws favoring a specific religion an excercise of freedom speech and voting rights by corporations that have the same rights as people? We are not required to accept laws that are illogical.
  - SauciestGNU 5y ago
    I agree with basically everything you've said here, but I am more pessimistic about the outcome of this case if heard before the current supreme court. While the court seems biased in a partisan manner towards Republicans (for instance, issuing rulings from the "shadow docket" without hearing arguments in a manner that consistently favors Republican interests), it seems unlikely that they would in any way restrict the ability of the rich and corporations to pour money into politics. One last thought is the the supreme court is essentially unrestricted in its power to interpret law via judicial review. But nowhere in the constitution was the court given power of judicial review. They invented it for themselves in Marbury v Madison. Given that context it seems pretty clear that they can decide who or what are persons in the eye of the law.
    - _8j50 5y ago
      They have had some surprisingly non-partisan rulings recently, I am hoping there are some judges who have paid attention to the chaos caused by that ruling and see the error if their ways. > They invented it for themselves ... Nailed it on the head. This power they seem to be excercising is not derived from the will if the governed. There are limits to the authority a government has, that is not defined in law but in the people's willingness to tolerate the governments behavior. For example in Germany resisting arrest is not illegal because the government cannot make laws against basic human instinct while in China the government can treat people like properties.

by _8j50 5y ago

SauciestGNU 5y ago

Quite frankly, you're completely wrong from a legal standpoint. We have a famous decision from our highest court (one that I very much disagree with by the way) which establishes corporate personhood and the right to free speech for corporations (and establishes that money is speech). As long as Citizens United stands as good law this action can be seen only as a frontal assault on free speech as it is explicitly defined by the supreme court.

_8j50 5y ago
I know about citizens united and I disagree with it, but from what I understand it is not beyond challenge as in the court has changed a bit since then and a challenge by Disney in this case is the only thing short of a constitutional amendment that will resolve the debacle. The law as it is written does not support the citizens united decision, it is judicial law making at best. > Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ... The Citizens united ruling stipulates to wrong things, first that spending money is speech (it is most certainly not!) and that this speech was restricted, it was not, individuals have every freedom to make election contributions, their freedom to make the supposed speech was not abridged. A regulated entity that is not a person was ... well regulated. The supreme court lacks the authority to declare arbitrary things a person. Are dogs people too? Is restricting them from barking abridging their freedom of speech? Does congress have a right to pass a law requiring dog owners to take measures to keep their dogs from barking loud in public? It also introduces an unresolvable conflict in that organized religion can influence politics because spending is speech and religious corporations are supposedly people with rights to make donations as they see fit. Congress can't pass a law that establishes or favors a specific religion yet congress can accept campaign donations by the wealthiest religious organizations (not humans) that donate funds to favor candidates that back their religious views, so is congress passing laws favoring a specific religion an excercise of freedom speech and voting rights by corporations that have the same rights as people? We are not required to accept laws that are illogical.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  I agree with basically everything you've said here, but I am more pessimistic about the outcome of this case if heard before the current supreme court. While the court seems biased in a partisan manner towards Republicans (for instance, issuing rulings from the "shadow docket" without hearing arguments in a manner that consistently favors Republican interests), it seems unlikely that they would in any way restrict the ability of the rich and corporations to pour money into politics. One last thought is the the supreme court is essentially unrestricted in its power to interpret law via judicial review. But nowhere in the constitution was the court given power of judicial review. They invented it for themselves in Marbury v Madison. Given that context it seems pretty clear that they can decide who or what are persons in the eye of the law.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    They have had some surprisingly non-partisan rulings recently, I am hoping there are some judges who have paid attention to the chaos caused by that ruling and see the error if their ways. > They invented it for themselves ... Nailed it on the head. This power they seem to be excercising is not derived from the will if the governed. There are limits to the authority a government has, that is not defined in law but in the people's willingness to tolerate the governments behavior. For example in Germany resisting arrest is not illegal because the government cannot make laws against basic human instinct while in China the government can treat people like properties.