5 ms·

> If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fi

> If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world. This seems odd. A corporation in this sense is a group of people deciding what to do. Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?

danaris 2y ago
A corporation is a group of people with very specific legal ramifications. If you're going to claim it's "the people making up the corporation" deciding what to do or say, then why can't I sue[0] the individuals who make up the corporation if I think that what they do or say is harmful to society? And conversely, if the group of people thinks that what they're doing and saying is so valuable and normal, why are they forming a corporation to do it, rather than just working together as independent citizens to do it? Because a corporation has a specific legal meaning, and that meaning does not, in any way, fundamentally include "being a legal person", regardless of what Supreme Court justices with obvious glaring holes in their ethics have said. [0] And expect not to get thrown out immediately because of limited liability. Yes, pedantically, I know you can sue for basically anything; that's clearly not the point here.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I think because you're separate people it's hard to know quite what to reply to, but I don't really understand the idea that a corporation should not be allowed to speak. I'm not speaking specifically about the US, so I don't have particular large biases for or against Supreme Court decisions. I'm more talking practically - what does it mean for a corporation to be silent? A corporation is already held to a higher standard than an individual; e.g. it can be sued for false advertising for anything it says. Given that, shouldn't corporations be able to "speak" (or rather the people in the corporation speak or instruct people to make videos/billboards etc)?
  - cess11 2y ago
    It does not need to be silent, only factual in the same sense it is in product information on the packaging and so on. Advertising as contrasted to information is deceitful, manipulative. It's what happens when two brands use the same factory but make people think one product is boring and for poor people and the other one is for sexy, richer people. The proliferation of this kind of mass communication comes from the project to invent and spread desires people otherwise wouldn't have, to satisfy the amount of productivity we've developed over the last century or so. Make people want stuff they don't need and rationally can't defend being in demand of, basically.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      No, advertising is not an alternative to information. Advertising can be purely factual.
      - cess11 2y ago
        For the purpose of this conversation, no. There's a world of difference between you selling a bike or 'advertising' your availability for employment, and the corporate mass communication we're discussing here. Unless you have a good reason to confuse these many meanings of the word, maybe you shouldn't?
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Advertising as contrasted to information is deceitful, manipulative This is what is confusing the many meanings of the word. There's no point doing terminology redefinition and then saying "See? Thing bad!" That's not the purpose of this conversation; that's just what you tried to do in an individual comment.
        cess11 2y ago
        If constraints and precision make you confused, maybe that's a you problem. I'm not a member of the religion which stipulates that states can create people without bodies, if you are, good for you perhaps but I'd prefer you became an apostate temporarily to make it easier to converse on this topic.
cess11 2y ago
A corporation is a separate entity from those people. Usually it's legally regarded as a person, but fictional instead of physical. Hence the limitations in how you can make people answer for debts and actions that belong to the corporation.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Sorry, I'm struggling to link what you're saying to the topic.
  - cess11 2y ago
    You asked me a question, I proposed an answer to it. If I failed to express myself clearly enough, please try to explain in more detail where I did so.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      I don't see how it links to the topic. For example, is your answer to this question "yes" or "no"? > Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?
      - cess11 2y ago
        I don't see the relevance. This isn't about people, it's about corporations.

danaris 2y ago

A corporation is a group of people with very specific legal ramifications. If you're going to claim it's "the people making up the corporation" deciding what to do or say, then why can't I sue[0] the individuals who make up the corporation if I think that what they do or say is harmful to society? And conversely, if the group of people thinks that what they're doing and saying is so valuable and normal, why are they forming a corporation to do it, rather than just working together as independent citizens to do it? Because a corporation has a specific legal meaning, and that meaning does not, in any way, fundamentally include "being a legal person", regardless of what Supreme Court justices with obvious glaring holes in their ethics have said. [0] And expect not to get thrown out immediately because of limited liability. Yes, pedantically, I know you can sue for basically anything; that's clearly not the point here.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I think because you're separate people it's hard to know quite what to reply to, but I don't really understand the idea that a corporation should not be allowed to speak. I'm not speaking specifically about the US, so I don't have particular large biases for or against Supreme Court decisions. I'm more talking practically - what does it mean for a corporation to be silent? A corporation is already held to a higher standard than an individual; e.g. it can be sued for false advertising for anything it says. Given that, shouldn't corporations be able to "speak" (or rather the people in the corporation speak or instruct people to make videos/billboards etc)?
- cess11 2y ago
  It does not need to be silent, only factual in the same sense it is in product information on the packaging and so on. Advertising as contrasted to information is deceitful, manipulative. It's what happens when two brands use the same factory but make people think one product is boring and for poor people and the other one is for sexy, richer people. The proliferation of this kind of mass communication comes from the project to invent and spread desires people otherwise wouldn't have, to satisfy the amount of productivity we've developed over the last century or so. Make people want stuff they don't need and rationally can't defend being in demand of, basically.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    No, advertising is not an alternative to information. Advertising can be purely factual.
    - cess11 2y ago
      For the purpose of this conversation, no. There's a world of difference between you selling a bike or 'advertising' your availability for employment, and the corporate mass communication we're discussing here. Unless you have a good reason to confuse these many meanings of the word, maybe you shouldn't?
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Advertising as contrasted to information is deceitful, manipulative This is what is confusing the many meanings of the word. There's no point doing terminology redefinition and then saying "See? Thing bad!" That's not the purpose of this conversation; that's just what you tried to do in an individual comment.
        cess11 2y ago
        If constraints and precision make you confused, maybe that's a you problem. I'm not a member of the religion which stipulates that states can create people without bodies, if you are, good for you perhaps but I'd prefer you became an apostate temporarily to make it easier to converse on this topic.

cess11 2y ago

A corporation is a separate entity from those people. Usually it's legally regarded as a person, but fictional instead of physical. Hence the limitations in how you can make people answer for debts and actions that belong to the corporation.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Sorry, I'm struggling to link what you're saying to the topic.
- cess11 2y ago
  You asked me a question, I proposed an answer to it. If I failed to express myself clearly enough, please try to explain in more detail where I did so.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I don't see how it links to the topic. For example, is your answer to this question "yes" or "no"? > Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?
    - cess11 2y ago
      I don't see the relevance. This isn't about people, it's about corporations.