7 ms·
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 judgem
by 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 agoName 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 agoPlease 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)
- eurleif 14y agoNo one is forced to participate in a corporation. If you like freedom so much, why don't you think people should be free to choose to pool their resources, and to give some of their control of those resources up to the group's leadership?
- crusso 14y agoI explicitly stated that people choose to group together to concentrate power. The examples given were to counter your specific argument against corporations by showing you that there are many similar organizations that are acceptable concentrations of power. The rest of your post ignored that context and furiously battled a straw man.
- Evbn 14y agoYou changed the meaning of 'concentrate'. People don't intend to have their orgs hijacked by their leaders, and some groups have bylaws to prevent that.
- crusso 14y agoAnd who is to decide the orgs that have the proper bylaws and restrictions and the orgs that don't?
- snowwrestler 14y agoThe members of a corporation are the shareholders, not the employees. The employee equivalent to a corporation is a union, which also has free speech rights.
- rosser 14y agoSo what about employees who, for whatever reason, can't unionize? Do they simply forfeit the ability to avail themselves of collective speech?
- snowwrestler 14y agoCertainly not! I'm not in a union and I give money and time to a variety of nonprofit organizations. The EFF, for instance, is a corporation that exists to concentrate the power of many people who care about online rights and freedoms. The Sierra Club is a corporation that concentrates the power of people who care about the environment. Etc.
- Evbn 14y agoYou giving money to EFF has nothing to do with being a corporation. You are not a controlling member of the EFF.
- snowwrestler 14y agoEFF is just an example. The point is that any group of individuals can form and/or fund a corporation to concentrate their speech on whatever topic they want.