4 ms·
why is exactly why corporations should not be "people", to prevent this idiocy.
by 38 2y ago
why is exactly why corporations should not be "people", to prevent this idiocy.
- samatman 2y agoCorporate personhood, a legal fiction, is not relevant here. The First Amendment in plain words protects the free speech rights of corporations, by referring to "the press". I have no opinion on what Amazon is doing, but they have a right to object to things on First Amendment grounds. Edit: having read the blurb, there's a solid case to be made that captive-audience meetings are an illegal speech act, the same way that you aren't allowed to corner someone in an alley and say "give me your wallet". Having First Amendment rights, which corporations do, does not give them license to violate the law through acts of free speech. It isn't the speaking which is proscribed in those cases, but the illegal act conveyed through speech.
- danaris 2y ago> The First Amendment in plain words protects the free speech rights of corporations, by referring to "the press". Amazon is not "the press". That is very clearly referring to news/journalism, not "anything any company happens to communicate". The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of people, not companies acting outside of a journalistic context.
- samatman 2y agoNo. That puts the government in control of deciding who is, and is not, the press. Which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, which was, in fact, explicitly, written to preclude that possibility. Your statement is also dead wrong on the face of it. https://amazonpublishing.amazon.com https://amazonpublishing.amazon.com
- marcosdumay 2y agoThat's not it. A person can't send threats to other people either. It's not something specific to corporations.
- jncfhnb 2y agoYou can send threats of particular kinds
- marcosdumay 2y agoYes, but "if you form an union I'll fire you" is a kind that is explicitly forbidden. It doesn't matter if the speech is named after a real person or not.
- nine_zeros 2y agoCorporations should only be considered as "people" if the executives and shareholders can be put to jail for criminal offenses - such as supplying poison to individuals.
- geodel 2y agoIndeed, can't wait to see teachers, firefighters, and other state and federal employees going to prison as their pension funds get invested in corporations committing crimes.
- Supermancho 2y agoYes, this would be the consequence. People would stop investing in these companies, knowing the consequence. The flip a switch send people to jail fantasy, is silly handwaving.
- nine_zeros 2y ago> Yes, this would be the consequence. People would stop investing in these companies, knowing the consequence. The flip a switch send people to jail fantasy, is silly handwaving. Or. just take away corporate personhood and the investors will no longer by liable for jail time.
- snickerbockers 2y agoContrapositively if we can't punish corporations for breaking the law the way we punish people, then the corporations must not be people and we shouldn't endow them with all the freedoms and rights that actual people have.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]