4 ms·
Corporate personhood, a legal fiction, is not relevant here. The First Amendment in plain words protects the free speech rights of corporations, by referring t
by samatman 2y ago
Corporate 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