10 ms·
The legal short-hand saying that "corporations are people" is terrible PR. Non-legal-experts look at that and logically and correctly conclude "no, they're not"
by zugi 1mo ago
The legal short-hand saying that "corporations are people" is terrible PR. Non-legal-experts look at that and logically and correctly conclude "no, they're not", and think it's a ridiculous statement.
The underlying legal principle is that groups of individuals banding together don't lose their fundamental rights. That applies to unions, non-profits, clubs, churches, political parties, small businesses, and yes, corporations.
Courts do allow more government control over "commercial speech" than, say, political speech. But that discriminates based on the type of speech, not the type of speaker.
- jacobr1 1mo agoThe main benefit to the fiction is limited liability. Without delegating to the corporation the responsibility for corporate actions would need to be defined as belonging to the owners, or all employees or some other structure where it all points to humans. If meta owes $18bn - I don't owe it - in the strong sense as a legal debt, as a shareholder in my 401k. The value of my ownership stake might go down (or up) but I don't have a shared legal obligation.
- account42 1mo ago> The underlying legal principle is that groups of individuals banding together don't lose their fundamental rights. .. but do limit their liabilities. It's not unreasonable to claim that limited liability should come with limited rights.