5 ms·
The compelling argument is that it should be quite obvious that companies do not speak for all of their employees, cause most of them are - to what degree can b
by sgift 3y ago
The compelling argument is that it should be quite obvious that companies do not speak for all of their employees, cause most of them are - to what degree can be argued until the end of time - basically coerced to express the "opinion" of the company. At most it's the opinion of the owners, artificially amplified.
And to the question why the owners should not be able to express themselves: They can express themselves individually all they want, but if they want to use a company to do it they should also be personally responsible for everything the company does. And since one of the primary reasons to have a company is to isolate the owners from being sued personally ... there's a bit of a problem here.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoBut that’s not the claim. A “company” doesn’t speak, individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a result of compensation, doesn’t mean they lose their right to free expression. You’re focusing on the “group” aspect of this, but that’s irrelevant to the argument. A PR spokesperson has individual rights, even if they choose to use that voice to advance a company’s goals.
- g-b-r 3y ago"Corporations free speech" usually refers to the freedom of giving money to politicians, not the freedom of a PR to speech
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?
- g-b-r 3y agoDisregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoThat’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so. And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is. But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.
- g-b-r 3y agoNo, it's simply not so
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoA better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.
- g-b-r 3y agoI think I did explain more than enough If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago"Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief. You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.
- g-b-r 3y agoNo, I explained my conclusion multiple times but you don't seem to have noticed it. I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is: * what I've always known * obvious on the face of it * apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.