5 ms·

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)

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)