3 ms·

> that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation In that argument each individual people keep their 1st amend

> that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation In that argument each individual people keep their 1st amendment right, but the group just doesn’t get a new one. Put it another way: suppose there’s 3 physical people, why should we allow them to combine into a maximum of 8 legal people ?

kube-system 4y ago
The group does get a new right. The government can’t fine Alice for political speech. The government can’t fine Bob for political speech. AND the government can’t fine “Alice and Bob, Inc.” for political speech. > Put it another way: suppose there’s 3 physical people, why should we allow them to combine into a maximum of 8 legal people ? Because they can belong to more than one group. I own parts of dozens of corporations along with as many as hundreds of thousands of other people. When one of them does something wrong, they can be sued with one name, rather than suing me and each of their thousands of other owners individually for their portion of the investment.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > AND the government can’t fine “Alice and Bob, Inc.” for political speech. This is where opinions differ. Because I am absolutely fine with the concept that "Alice and Bob, Inc" has none of the rights of personhood (really, citizenship), and that if there was a statute that allowed for prosecution of political speech, it could be used to silence "Alice and Bob, Inc." even though it cannot be used to silence Alice or Bob. Notice that as a matter of nuance, I differentiate between for-profit corporations and other forms of corporations. I would accord some (perhaps all) of the speech rights of persons to the latter, but none of them to the former. By incorporating with a structure created to facilitate the generation and distribution of profit, you acknowledge that the corporation thus created does not have the rights of personhood.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I definitely disagree with giving the government the ability to retaliate against corporations for political speech. Or, to seize their property without a warrant. Could you imagine if the Trump administration had the legal right to seize property at Twitter, WaPo, etc?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      I'm not arguing for the existence of any such laws (and indeed, I think they would be a mistake). In the case of Citizens, the law involved covered who can spend what on election related advertising during certain periods close to an election. The law was acknowledged by everyone to not impact the individual right to free speech, but in the lower courts it had been ruled constitutional to inhibit corporations of various kinds in this way. SCOTUS said "nuh-uh", and ruled that corporations have the same speech rights as natural persons and that their right (in this case, to publish a book about Hilary Clinton) could not be restricted by such a law. I don't actually disagree entirely with Citizens at all, I just wish that SCOTUS had limited the ruling to non-profit corporations.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      This is a separate issue from whether corporations should be treated as persons with personal rights. One could argue for a more limited "corporation bill of rights" - but this is something that our society needs to explicitly agree on, rather than appropriating pre-existing rights that were originally devised in the context of natural persons, and just blindly applying them to corporations.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

kube-system 4y ago

The group does get a new right. The government can’t fine Alice for political speech. The government can’t fine Bob for political speech. AND the government can’t fine “Alice and Bob, Inc.” for political speech. > Put it another way: suppose there’s 3 physical people, why should we allow them to combine into a maximum of 8 legal people ? Because they can belong to more than one group. I own parts of dozens of corporations along with as many as hundreds of thousands of other people. When one of them does something wrong, they can be sued with one name, rather than suing me and each of their thousands of other owners individually for their portion of the investment.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> AND the government can’t fine “Alice and Bob, Inc.” for political speech. This is where opinions differ. Because I am absolutely fine with the concept that "Alice and Bob, Inc" has none of the rights of personhood (really, citizenship), and that if there was a statute that allowed for prosecution of political speech, it could be used to silence "Alice and Bob, Inc." even though it cannot be used to silence Alice or Bob. Notice that as a matter of nuance, I differentiate between for-profit corporations and other forms of corporations. I would accord some (perhaps all) of the speech rights of persons to the latter, but none of them to the former. By incorporating with a structure created to facilitate the generation and distribution of profit, you acknowledge that the corporation thus created does not have the rights of personhood.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I definitely disagree with giving the government the ability to retaliate against corporations for political speech. Or, to seize their property without a warrant. Could you imagine if the Trump administration had the legal right to seize property at Twitter, WaPo, etc?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    I'm not arguing for the existence of any such laws (and indeed, I think they would be a mistake). In the case of Citizens, the law involved covered who can spend what on election related advertising during certain periods close to an election. The law was acknowledged by everyone to not impact the individual right to free speech, but in the lower courts it had been ruled constitutional to inhibit corporations of various kinds in this way. SCOTUS said "nuh-uh", and ruled that corporations have the same speech rights as natural persons and that their right (in this case, to publish a book about Hilary Clinton) could not be restricted by such a law. I don't actually disagree entirely with Citizens at all, I just wish that SCOTUS had limited the ruling to non-profit corporations.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    This is a separate issue from whether corporations should be treated as persons with personal rights. One could argue for a more limited "corporation bill of rights" - but this is something that our society needs to explicitly agree on, rather than appropriating pre-existing rights that were originally devised in the context of natural persons, and just blindly applying them to corporations.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]