5 ms·

What's the reasoning behind the corporation needing rights? It seems like if taken far enough my photocopier would need rights, whereas I think it would be more

by wnight 14y ago

What's the reasoning behind the corporation needing rights? It seems like if taken far enough my photocopier would need rights, whereas I think it would be more straight-forward to deal with the people behind the instrument rather than the instrument itself.

dantheman 14y ago
The gist of it is, is that you don't lose your rights when your get together in a group.
- chc 14y ago
  But you do lose many of your responsibilities behind the corporate veil. That's the thing that's so weird. Corporations don't merely give their constituent people a vehicle to exercise their rights. Corporations are totally separate people from any person inside the corporation.
  - crusso 14y ago
    How does the corporate veil affect free speech? Just looked at the largest union, the NEA. It's incorporated in many states for various reasons. Should that prevent it from participating in political discourse?
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The corporate veil protects shareholders from being personally liable for the debts and obligations incurred by the corporation. Speech does not create debts or obligations, so the veil is not an issue. Corporate speech is subject to some regulation, just like personal speech. Corporations can be sued for slander and libel, advertisements must meet certain standards of truthfulness, etc.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      If you commit libel, you are liable. If your corporation commits libel, you are not liable. That's one problem.
      - crusso 14y ago
        On top of the fact that it's practically impossible to make a libel accusation stick when political speech is even barely provable - being incorporated doesn't prevent a libel proceeding from moving forward. It just means that it's more difficult to pin it to individuals within the corporation. Even then, there are ways that the corporate veil can be pierced to still go after individuals.
      - snowwrestler 14y ago
        Why is that a problem?
- rosser 14y ago
  I'd find that argument a lot more compelling if the speech afforded the group (corporation) by its 1st Amendment rights were a reflection of the will and judgement of the members — that is, everyone at the corporation, and not, as seems so often to be the case, merely an extension of its owners speech rights. Corporations are incredible concentrators of wealth, and consequently power, and those concentrations of wealth and power can espouse actions and principles that are frequently at odds with the well-being of that corporation's employees — the very people whose speech the Citizens United ruling purports to prevent being curtailed. Witness the allegations during the last Presidential election cycle of a mining company in Ohio (Murray Energy) requiring its employees to use an unpaid workday to attend a Romney rally — or lose their jobs. How, exactly, is such "group speech" at all reflective of the political views of that group's membership?
  - crusso 14y ago
    Name the large group of people in an organization that DOES NOT concentrate the power hierarchically? Corporations have CEOs and boards of directors. Non-profits do likewise. Large Newspapers have the owners and chief editors. Unions have Union Bosses and various types of decision boards. Churches have Popes, Cardinals, etc. People often group together PRECISELY TO CONCENTRATE POWER. Why is it surprising? Why should Corporations be singled out for special treatment?
    - rosser 14y ago
      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seriously sounds to me like you're arguing, "This is how we've always done it..." If so, two things: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy 2. In our history as a species, that same (fallacious) argument could have been, and almost certainly was used to support slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide, among other charming and socially redeeming things. I really couldn't care less whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior has always been around or not. My ethical compass is pretty firmly tuned to one fundamental principle: the net increase in human freedom — freedom of action, and freedom from harm; freedom of expression, and freedom from exploitation. I care whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior serves to benefit one group of monkeys at the expense of another. To my mind, this one — the concentration of power in the hands of a few, built on the backs of many, which is then used to enact social norms or policy that are often counter to the interests of those many — does. (Edited)
rayiner 14y ago
People join together into organizations so that they can pool resources. Explicitly exempting organizations from first amendment protections makes it easy for the government to side-step that and chill individual rights in the process. Say the Jeb Bush administration comes along and makes it illegal for corporations to publish documentaries on environmental issues. The individuals at say the Sierra Club can still publish their own documentaries, but their ability to pool resources is gutted. They can't raise donations and store them in the corporation, because the corporation can't then use those funds to make environmental documentaries. It's not a matter of "corporations having rights." It's a matter of allowing individuals to exercise their rights in organized groups that allow them to have more impact.
- wnight 14y ago
  I didn't ask why we found it politically expedient to do this or that, I asked why the original poster thought rights for corporations was a fundamentally good idea. "Because they balance various risks" (as I read your post) may be an accurate description of the world, but isn't an answer for why we don't change it. Most everyone would agree Sturgeon was right, and doubly so about code - and the legal system is a huge pile of politically motivated spaghetti code written over centuries by people who didn't try to get a big picture. We need to decide what parts of our laws capture and define our image of ourselves and what parts are garbage. So rather than create rights for money to prevent DEA seizures or enacting rights for corporations, recognize instead the point of a limited government. Everything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. We can't fix our current government into that with more laws.

by wnight 14y ago

dantheman 14y ago

The gist of it is, is that you don't lose your rights when your get together in a group.

chc 14y ago
But you do lose many of your responsibilities behind the corporate veil. That's the thing that's so weird. Corporations don't merely give their constituent people a vehicle to exercise their rights. Corporations are totally separate people from any person inside the corporation.
- crusso 14y ago
  How does the corporate veil affect free speech? Just looked at the largest union, the NEA. It's incorporated in many states for various reasons. Should that prevent it from participating in political discourse?
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The corporate veil protects shareholders from being personally liable for the debts and obligations incurred by the corporation. Speech does not create debts or obligations, so the veil is not an issue. Corporate speech is subject to some regulation, just like personal speech. Corporations can be sued for slander and libel, advertisements must meet certain standards of truthfulness, etc.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    If you commit libel, you are liable. If your corporation commits libel, you are not liable. That's one problem.
    - crusso 14y ago
      On top of the fact that it's practically impossible to make a libel accusation stick when political speech is even barely provable - being incorporated doesn't prevent a libel proceeding from moving forward. It just means that it's more difficult to pin it to individuals within the corporation. Even then, there are ways that the corporate veil can be pierced to still go after individuals.
    - snowwrestler 14y ago
      Why is that a problem?
rosser 14y ago
I'd find that argument a lot more compelling if the speech afforded the group (corporation) by its 1st Amendment rights were a reflection of the will and judgement of the members — that is, everyone at the corporation, and not, as seems so often to be the case, merely an extension of its owners speech rights. Corporations are incredible concentrators of wealth, and consequently power, and those concentrations of wealth and power can espouse actions and principles that are frequently at odds with the well-being of that corporation's employees — the very people whose speech the Citizens United ruling purports to prevent being curtailed. Witness the allegations during the last Presidential election cycle of a mining company in Ohio (Murray Energy) requiring its employees to use an unpaid workday to attend a Romney rally — or lose their jobs. How, exactly, is such "group speech" at all reflective of the political views of that group's membership?
- crusso 14y ago
  Name the large group of people in an organization that DOES NOT concentrate the power hierarchically? Corporations have CEOs and boards of directors. Non-profits do likewise. Large Newspapers have the owners and chief editors. Unions have Union Bosses and various types of decision boards. Churches have Popes, Cardinals, etc. People often group together PRECISELY TO CONCENTRATE POWER. Why is it surprising? Why should Corporations be singled out for special treatment?
  - rosser 14y ago
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seriously sounds to me like you're arguing, "This is how we've always done it..." If so, two things: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy 2. In our history as a species, that same (fallacious) argument could have been, and almost certainly was used to support slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide, among other charming and socially redeeming things. I really couldn't care less whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior has always been around or not. My ethical compass is pretty firmly tuned to one fundamental principle: the net increase in human freedom — freedom of action, and freedom from harm; freedom of expression, and freedom from exploitation. I care whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior serves to benefit one group of monkeys at the expense of another. To my mind, this one — the concentration of power in the hands of a few, built on the backs of many, which is then used to enact social norms or policy that are often counter to the interests of those many — does. (Edited)

rayiner 14y ago

People join together into organizations so that they can pool resources. Explicitly exempting organizations from first amendment protections makes it easy for the government to side-step that and chill individual rights in the process. Say the Jeb Bush administration comes along and makes it illegal for corporations to publish documentaries on environmental issues. The individuals at say the Sierra Club can still publish their own documentaries, but their ability to pool resources is gutted. They can't raise donations and store them in the corporation, because the corporation can't then use those funds to make environmental documentaries. It's not a matter of "corporations having rights." It's a matter of allowing individuals to exercise their rights in organized groups that allow them to have more impact.

wnight 14y ago
I didn't ask why we found it politically expedient to do this or that, I asked why the original poster thought rights for corporations was a fundamentally good idea. "Because they balance various risks" (as I read your post) may be an accurate description of the world, but isn't an answer for why we don't change it. Most everyone would agree Sturgeon was right, and doubly so about code - and the legal system is a huge pile of politically motivated spaghetti code written over centuries by people who didn't try to get a big picture. We need to decide what parts of our laws capture and define our image of ourselves and what parts are garbage. So rather than create rights for money to prevent DEA seizures or enacting rights for corporations, recognize instead the point of a limited government. Everything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. We can't fix our current government into that with more laws.