5 ms·

> that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation Nobody in that group of people has lost anything. If 10 peop

by feoren 4y ago

> that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation Nobody in that group of people has lost anything. If 10 people walk into a room, you have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room. If they organize into a corporation, you have 11 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room!? Without Citizen's United, you simply still have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights. Who's losing anything?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think the critical question is if freedom of speech still applies to a group of individual people working together. Corporations don't have first amendment rights, but the Individuals do. The idea is that just because you work with someone else to put up posters, your right to put them up doesn't go away. Same if you hire someone to put up your posters. That's all that corporate personhood means. People get very hung up on the language.
kube-system 4y ago
“Corporate personhood” is just a fancy legal word for “group of people”. And “legal person” is just a fancy shortening of “anything that can interact with the court system, whether a single person or a group of people” People get very caught up on the legalese but it is perfectly logical when you move past that. Yes, if 10 people form a corporation, that is 11 entities recognizable by a court system that has first amendment rights. All 10 humans can criticize the president at home, and you can do so work in an official capacity without your corporation facing consequences.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > “Corporate personhood” is just a fancy legal word for “group of people”. It absolutely is not. It creates an entity to which actions can be attributed but the responsibility for its actions does not and generally cannot extend to "people who make up the group". Somce of us believe that even though there are benefits to society from allowing such entities to exist, these entities should not be accorded the rights of personhood. [ EDIT: should NOT be accorded ]
  - kube-system 4y ago
    “Natural person” is the legal term used to differentiate between humans and corporations when necessary. The concept of corporate personhood does not undermine the legal systems ability to differentiate between the two. If a law shouldn’t apply to human person but not a corporation, the law simply need to specify “natural person”. Corporate personhood doesn’t interfere with this.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Citizens was decided not on the basis of a law, but the US Constitution, which does not make the distinction you refer to. SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict the speech rights of corporations, so even if the original Congressionally-passed, Presidentially-signed law had been specific about the type of "persons" it referred to, SCOTUS would (under the logic of Citizens) have overruled it as unconstitutional.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        The US constitution is a subset of law. > which does not make the distinction you refer to Maybe it should, then. Congress can change it.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        > The US constitution is a subset of law. "the law", yes. But the US constitution is not "a law". > Congress can change it. Proposing changes to the US constitution as a method of dealing with contemporary policy and procedural issues deserves a name ala Godwin's Law. I mean, it's not that I disagree with you, it just that it's not going to happen.

by feoren 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think the critical question is if freedom of speech still applies to a group of individual people working together. Corporations don't have first amendment rights, but the Individuals do. The idea is that just because you work with someone else to put up posters, your right to put them up doesn't go away. Same if you hire someone to put up your posters. That's all that corporate personhood means. People get very hung up on the language.

kube-system 4y ago

“Corporate personhood” is just a fancy legal word for “group of people”. And “legal person” is just a fancy shortening of “anything that can interact with the court system, whether a single person or a group of people” People get very caught up on the legalese but it is perfectly logical when you move past that. Yes, if 10 people form a corporation, that is 11 entities recognizable by a court system that has first amendment rights. All 10 humans can criticize the president at home, and you can do so work in an official capacity without your corporation facing consequences.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> “Corporate personhood” is just a fancy legal word for “group of people”. It absolutely is not. It creates an entity to which actions can be attributed but the responsibility for its actions does not and generally cannot extend to "people who make up the group". Somce of us believe that even though there are benefits to society from allowing such entities to exist, these entities should not be accorded the rights of personhood. [ EDIT: should NOT be accorded ]
- kube-system 4y ago
  “Natural person” is the legal term used to differentiate between humans and corporations when necessary. The concept of corporate personhood does not undermine the legal systems ability to differentiate between the two. If a law shouldn’t apply to human person but not a corporation, the law simply need to specify “natural person”. Corporate personhood doesn’t interfere with this.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Citizens was decided not on the basis of a law, but the US Constitution, which does not make the distinction you refer to. SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict the speech rights of corporations, so even if the original Congressionally-passed, Presidentially-signed law had been specific about the type of "persons" it referred to, SCOTUS would (under the logic of Citizens) have overruled it as unconstitutional.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      The US constitution is a subset of law. > which does not make the distinction you refer to Maybe it should, then. Congress can change it.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        > The US constitution is a subset of law. "the law", yes. But the US constitution is not "a law". > Congress can change it. Proposing changes to the US constitution as a method of dealing with contemporary policy and procedural issues deserves a name ala Godwin's Law. I mean, it's not that I disagree with you, it just that it's not going to happen.