3 ms·

Hold on there! "Private entity"? As I recall, random entities have no rights, humans have rights but there is no corporate bill of rights. Companies like ISPs e

by _8j50 4y ago

Hold on there! "Private entity"? As I recall, random entities have no rights, humans have rights but there is no corporate bill of rights. Companies like ISPs enjoy the privilege of commerce and profit in exchange for obligations under law. Persons like you and I enjoy liberites and rights in exchange for obligations under the law. Not only do companies have no right, the fed government has a constitutional right and obligation to regulate interstate commerce as they it fit which ISPs fall squarely in that box.

tzs 4y ago
> As I recall, random entities have no rights, humans have rights but there is no corporate bill of rights. The law in the US as early as the late 18th century has recognized that associations of people have rights separate from the rights of the individuals that are in the associations.
- cma 4y ago
  But definitely not the right to secondary strikes! /s
- _8j50 4y ago
  Individuals have rights to be part of and participate in a group but legal entities that represent one or multiple people (you can have a corporation with one person) have not been recognized as a person until citizens united ruling and don't have rights. Speech made my people as part of an association or group is protected but speech made by a a person as part of their representation of a legal entity is not their own speech so it isn't protected. Similar to how a government official can censor your speech at their home but they can't censor your speech even at their home as part of their official function since that would be the entity of the government censoring your speech. Throughout the US law there is a clear distinction between people acting on their own behalf or on behalf of some other entity. This is why the president isn't held accountable like a normal person because all of his actions during term are actions of an entity which is his office and therefore not an individual that can be treated equally as other individual persons. At the most basic level, corporations and associations are not naturally existing so they can't have any natural rights, nor can it be claimed that they are a "person", legal or otherwise, because a person can only be a sentient life form which a legal entiry obviously is not. In other words, pets and insects can more reasonably be called a person, even trees and germs, at worst you can extend it to inanimate objects after abandoning all reason but intangible fabrications meant to serve a legal purpose are not persons in the wildest stretch of the imagination.
  - tzs 4y ago
    > Individuals have rights to be part of and participate in a group but legal entities that represent one or multiple people (you can have a corporation with one person) have not been recognized as a person until citizens united ruling and don't have rights. You are off by around 200 years. See [1] for a good summary. Note: they might have some cases mixed up. They cite "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823)", but the only case with that name I see is Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Town of Pawlet, 29 U.S. 480 (1830). There is an 1823 case with that plaintiff, Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 21 U.S. 464 (1823). I'm not sure if they meant to cite the first and got the year wrong, or mean to cite the latter and got the defendant wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_Un...
    - _8j50 4y ago
      Hey,look, I am not saying reason and justice are being applied. I am only stating the very obvious which is contradicted by US law. Going beyond specicific government and legal systems, the rule of law itself has no authority to rule in a manner that contradicts basic reason and logic. You cannot have the law declare bees are a type of fish, which (a court in california did this recently for environmental reasons), but no one has the obligation to follow that law because its claims are demonstrably in conflict with reason and logic as any reasonable person would see it. They can declare corporations have certain rights but if those rights depend on corporations being a person of any kind, unless you can also claim and prove that regular reasonable people with no conflicts of interest in the subject matter can also agree with you in that asserion being reasonable and logical, then that law is based on something that exceeds the boundary of the contract between the rulers and the ruled under the rule of law. Now, if we were ruled by the decrees and judgements of an individual, the rule of man that is, this ruler can declare rocks are people, the sky is actually not blue but a hint of pink, babies are delivered by storks and anything else and we have to go along with it. The very premise of the rule of law is that the ruled can understand the rules using reason and logic so that they can follow them. Otherwise, you are not following the law but the decrees and will of the rule makers blindly. You don't have to like or agree with a law but it needs to make logical sense for it to have authority and for the ruled to say anything other than "fear if punishment is the only reason we are doing this, even though it makes no sense at all" which is no different than the rule of man except you noted down the decrees on paper.

by _8j50 4y ago

tzs 4y ago

> As I recall, random entities have no rights, humans have rights but there is no corporate bill of rights. The law in the US as early as the late 18th century has recognized that associations of people have rights separate from the rights of the individuals that are in the associations.

cma 4y ago
But definitely not the right to secondary strikes! /s
_8j50 4y ago
Individuals have rights to be part of and participate in a group but legal entities that represent one or multiple people (you can have a corporation with one person) have not been recognized as a person until citizens united ruling and don't have rights. Speech made my people as part of an association or group is protected but speech made by a a person as part of their representation of a legal entity is not their own speech so it isn't protected. Similar to how a government official can censor your speech at their home but they can't censor your speech even at their home as part of their official function since that would be the entity of the government censoring your speech. Throughout the US law there is a clear distinction between people acting on their own behalf or on behalf of some other entity. This is why the president isn't held accountable like a normal person because all of his actions during term are actions of an entity which is his office and therefore not an individual that can be treated equally as other individual persons. At the most basic level, corporations and associations are not naturally existing so they can't have any natural rights, nor can it be claimed that they are a "person", legal or otherwise, because a person can only be a sentient life form which a legal entiry obviously is not. In other words, pets and insects can more reasonably be called a person, even trees and germs, at worst you can extend it to inanimate objects after abandoning all reason but intangible fabrications meant to serve a legal purpose are not persons in the wildest stretch of the imagination.
- tzs 4y ago
  > Individuals have rights to be part of and participate in a group but legal entities that represent one or multiple people (you can have a corporation with one person) have not been recognized as a person until citizens united ruling and don't have rights. You are off by around 200 years. See [1] for a good summary. Note: they might have some cases mixed up. They cite "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823)", but the only case with that name I see is Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Town of Pawlet, 29 U.S. 480 (1830). There is an 1823 case with that plaintiff, Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 21 U.S. 464 (1823). I'm not sure if they meant to cite the first and got the year wrong, or mean to cite the latter and got the defendant wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_Un...
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Hey,look, I am not saying reason and justice are being applied. I am only stating the very obvious which is contradicted by US law. Going beyond specicific government and legal systems, the rule of law itself has no authority to rule in a manner that contradicts basic reason and logic. You cannot have the law declare bees are a type of fish, which (a court in california did this recently for environmental reasons), but no one has the obligation to follow that law because its claims are demonstrably in conflict with reason and logic as any reasonable person would see it. They can declare corporations have certain rights but if those rights depend on corporations being a person of any kind, unless you can also claim and prove that regular reasonable people with no conflicts of interest in the subject matter can also agree with you in that asserion being reasonable and logical, then that law is based on something that exceeds the boundary of the contract between the rulers and the ruled under the rule of law. Now, if we were ruled by the decrees and judgements of an individual, the rule of man that is, this ruler can declare rocks are people, the sky is actually not blue but a hint of pink, babies are delivered by storks and anything else and we have to go along with it. The very premise of the rule of law is that the ruled can understand the rules using reason and logic so that they can follow them. Otherwise, you are not following the law but the decrees and will of the rule makers blindly. You don't have to like or agree with a law but it needs to make logical sense for it to have authority and for the ruled to say anything other than "fear if punishment is the only reason we are doing this, even though it makes no sense at all" which is no different than the rule of man except you noted down the decrees on paper.