10 ms·
> X Corp. argued that AB 587 violates the First Amendment by compelling "companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will" and "impermissibly" inte
by charles_f 3y ago
> X Corp. argued that AB 587 violates the First Amendment by compelling "companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will" and "impermissibly" interfering "with the constitutionally protected editorial judgments of companies."
Ok genuine question there: are companies considered the same as people when it comes to US Constitution? Does a company have free speech and the right to bear arms?
- rgbrenner 3y agoCourts have said: Companies are just groups of people. So a person, employed by Twitter, has the same free speech rights as anyone else. If you force a company to take certain actions, a person in the company must perform that action... and forcing that person to take certain actions may be a violation of that person's rights.
- rhyme-boss 3y agoThat seems logically incoherent (for a court to say). An individual can leave a company if they don't want to take those actions.
- sebzim4500 3y agoI think it would be more logically incoherent if a group of people magically lost their rights because they got together to make a company.
- rhyme-boss 3y agoIt's a voluntary arrangement that they can leave. Certain activities come with responsibilities and restrictions, *in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoNo our constitutional rights are not predicated on our actions or speech having no impact on society. On the contrary our rights are so that we may impact society as we see fit. This is such a dangerous line of thought I almost don’t believe it. Users original comment mentioned impact on society.
- rhyme-boss 3y ago- You give up your first amendment rights when you sign non-disclosure agreements. - You give up your second amendment rights when you enter a school or hospital. - You give up privacy rights when you go through security screenings. - You give up rights to a law suit when you sign a liability release at a climbing gym.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoThis is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration. User also modified his original comment from “impact on society” to nothing to “in the interest of others rights”. Also all word for word with the current blitz on constitutional rights. Interesting
- Jensson 3y ago> This is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration. I was interested and tried to google that word for word, only thing that showed up was this thread. So it isn't word for word the same.
- Caligatio 3y agoShould power companies be allowed to disconnect power (i.e. moderate) to entities that disagree with their ideals? I'm not necessarily arguing X/Twitter is in the same league as a power company but this line of thought has many precedents.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MiguelX413 3y agoSo companies being required to file for taxes and put nutrition facts on their food products violates the rights of certain people within those companies?
- charles_f 3y agoYeah that's the philosophical dilemma here
- rgbrenner 3y agoRe: nutrition facts see the Zauderer test. The Hudson test is related. Here's a flowchart: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Public-Health-Commercial-Speech-Chart-2018.pdf https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resour... And then you can look up the cases to see the logic behind them.
- woodruffw 3y agoIn particular, the Zauderer test allows the state to compel commercial speech if doing so is "reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of customers[1]." It's obviously up for debate, but I think one could make a strong argument that Twitter's content policies pass this test. (More generally, however: there's lots of compelled commercial speech that doesn't fit into this flowchart. Taxes, commercial permits, leases, etc. I think one could make a strong argument that this law is strictly logistical in nature and represents no more of a 1A risk than Twitter's commercial leases do.) [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/
- gpm 3y agoWould requiring an individual file taxes or disclose nutrition facts on food products they are selling violate their rights? If not, then no...
- fluidcruft 3y agoLet me warm up some popcorn for when Twitter tries to claim they cannot lose their business license because the State has no power to compel them to file their annual report since doing so violates their employee's 1A rights.
- atoav 3y agoSo how do you jail a corporation when they comitted a crime? If you don't they are not a person. If that discrepancy doesn't feel unjust to you should do some soul searching maybe and maybe look at other places where corporation profit from their "personhood" without ever having to experience the negatives of actually being one.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIf they get benefits, maybe they can have the downsides like being arrested, imprisoned, and even executed.
- erellsworth 3y agoYes they are, more or less. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/corporations-people-doctrine-real-legal-concept https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/corporations-people-doct...
- dehrmann 3y agoThe term you're looking for is "corporate personhood."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ssalka 3y agoSeems like possibly a corollary from Citizens United
- pickingdinner 3y ago> engage in speech against their will X or musk's will? If X has a "say" on a "speech platform" that's a major power imbalance. Not that X's speech is this or that, but that it shouldn't exist on it's own. Musk or anyone may speak on behalf of X, but if there is no "on behalf of" there should be no speech there. Speech as in, to put forth opinion, ideology, values or anything beyond simply being silent and letting everyone else (users, which includes those who may speak on behalf of) speak.