5 ms·

It seems to me that this SCOTUS has actually had a pretty good track record on civil liberties and these underdog kind of cases (Citizens United notwithstanding

It seems to me that this SCOTUS has actually had a pretty good track record on civil liberties and these underdog kind of cases (Citizens United notwithstanding)

saraid216 14y ago
IANAL, and I haven't studied the issue, but from what I do understand, Citizens United made a lot of sense from a strict legal perspective. That is, corporations have always been persons under the law, and they were just affirming that. The issue, really, is more that they also affirmed the usage of this detail as a loophole because they were faced with either (1) negating a crapton of case law that depended on corporate personhood (any court case with a corporation as plaintiff or defendant, for instance) or (2) legislating from the bench. So they went with option 3. The solution as I see it would have been to say that monetary expenditure doesn't constitute speech and is thus subject to regulation. If people want to propagate political messages free of charge in order to get around the regulation, I think I'd be okay with that. That feels like a legislator's turf rather than a judiciary's turf, but I'm not entirely sure; the dissent's opinion didn't seem to suggest this solution, so I might be completely off-base or it really is a legislator's turf thing.
- akiselev 14y ago
  I only mentioned the Citizens United case because it's popularly reviled. I see no problem with the ruling as far as precedent goes (although I have qualms about the general rights without responsibilities that corps get) and I don't think it has really changed that much. Except... the commercials seem to get more and more interesting. The SCOTUS certainly has an idealogical split (as in conservative vs liberal) but the categories are far more nuanced than just Republican or Democrat and I think they've been doing a decent job.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    It is only "popularly reviled" among leftists because the Citizens United non-profit corporation was producing right-wing speech. For my part, I agree with the ACLU that the decision was a resounding victory for free speech.
- khuey 14y ago
  Corporations have not always been persons under the law.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    94% of the lifetime of the law itself, and inspired by British practices, is pretty close to "always" for me. I went looking for a history of USC Title 1 Section 1, but I couldn't find anything, and I think that numbering system was only set up in 1920 anyways. Again, I'm not an expert in this field. I could totally be wrong. But you're going to have to be a little more convincing than "No it's not" to overrule Wikipedia.
    - khuey 14y ago
      The modern understanding of corporate personhood (that "equal protection of the laws" applies to non-natural persons) is generally dated to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1888. I don't know where "94% of the lifetime of the law itself" and "inspired by British practices" come from, so I can't really dispute those.
gwright 14y ago
I don't understand the disdain that Citizens United gets. It is a pretty clear cut application of 1st Amendment principles. People don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they are organized as a corporation. The law can't favor free speech for some corporations/groups (New York Times, MSNBC, UAW, etc.) but not others (non-profit groups like Citizens United). On top of this, the speech involved was political speech, something that lies at the heart of free speech principles rather than more controversial areas of free speech theory (advertising, obscene or vulgar speech, etc.). The main argument against Citizens United seemed to be a dislike of the source of funding for the speech (i.e. trying to get 'money' out of politics). But you can't take that approach to the problem without explaining why media corporations (TV networks, newspapers, online media) get some special consideration. The common ground in this area seems to be in better disclosure and transparency regulations.
- pdonis 14y ago
  People don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they are organized as a corporation. This assumes that any speech or political contribution by a corporation is automatically assented to by everyone who is associated with the corporation. Ask the employees or shareholders of a large corporation how many of them agree with using the corporation's money for the campaign contributions it makes. If people want to express their individual opinions, they can express them individually. If they want to express opinions as a large group, they can all sign the same letter or petition. Using company money to do things that only some of the company's owners or employees would assent to is not "free speech"; it's misuse of company money. That used to be called "embezzlement", not free speech. The law can't favor free speech for some corporations/groups (New York Times, MSNBC, UAW, etc.) but not others (non-profit groups like Citizens United). I agree with this; I don't see why the New York Times should get any special privileges because it's a "journalistic organization". But that just means everybody should have to abide by the same rules; it doesn't mean the rules should allow corporations to do things with company money that many if not most of their employees and shareholders would not agree with, just because those things happen to be "speech".
  - gwright 14y ago

It seems to me that this SCOTUS has actually had a pretty good track record on civil liberties and these underdog kind of cases (Citizens United notwithstanding)

saraid216 14y ago

IANAL, and I haven't studied the issue, but from what I do understand, Citizens United made a lot of sense from a strict legal perspective. That is, corporations have always been persons under the law, and they were just affirming that. The issue, really, is more that they also affirmed the usage of this detail as a loophole because they were faced with either (1) negating a crapton of case law that depended on corporate personhood (any court case with a corporation as plaintiff or defendant, for instance) or (2) legislating from the bench. So they went with option 3. The solution as I see it would have been to say that monetary expenditure doesn't constitute speech and is thus subject to regulation. If people want to propagate political messages free of charge in order to get around the regulation, I think I'd be okay with that. That feels like a legislator's turf rather than a judiciary's turf, but I'm not entirely sure; the dissent's opinion didn't seem to suggest this solution, so I might be completely off-base or it really is a legislator's turf thing.

akiselev 14y ago
I only mentioned the Citizens United case because it's popularly reviled. I see no problem with the ruling as far as precedent goes (although I have qualms about the general rights without responsibilities that corps get) and I don't think it has really changed that much. Except... the commercials seem to get more and more interesting. The SCOTUS certainly has an idealogical split (as in conservative vs liberal) but the categories are far more nuanced than just Republican or Democrat and I think they've been doing a decent job.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  It is only "popularly reviled" among leftists because the Citizens United non-profit corporation was producing right-wing speech. For my part, I agree with the ACLU that the decision was a resounding victory for free speech.
khuey 14y ago
Corporations have not always been persons under the law.
- saraid216 14y ago
  94% of the lifetime of the law itself, and inspired by British practices, is pretty close to "always" for me. I went looking for a history of USC Title 1 Section 1, but I couldn't find anything, and I think that numbering system was only set up in 1920 anyways. Again, I'm not an expert in this field. I could totally be wrong. But you're going to have to be a little more convincing than "No it's not" to overrule Wikipedia.
  - khuey 14y ago
    The modern understanding of corporate personhood (that "equal protection of the laws" applies to non-natural persons) is generally dated to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1888. I don't know where "94% of the lifetime of the law itself" and "inspired by British practices" come from, so I can't really dispute those.

gwright 14y ago

I don't understand the disdain that Citizens United gets. It is a pretty clear cut application of 1st Amendment principles. People don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they are organized as a corporation. The law can't favor free speech for some corporations/groups (New York Times, MSNBC, UAW, etc.) but not others (non-profit groups like Citizens United). On top of this, the speech involved was political speech, something that lies at the heart of free speech principles rather than more controversial areas of free speech theory (advertising, obscene or vulgar speech, etc.). The main argument against Citizens United seemed to be a dislike of the source of funding for the speech (i.e. trying to get 'money' out of politics). But you can't take that approach to the problem without explaining why media corporations (TV networks, newspapers, online media) get some special consideration. The common ground in this area seems to be in better disclosure and transparency regulations.

pdonis 14y ago
People don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they are organized as a corporation. This assumes that any speech or political contribution by a corporation is automatically assented to by everyone who is associated with the corporation. Ask the employees or shareholders of a large corporation how many of them agree with using the corporation's money for the campaign contributions it makes. If people want to express their individual opinions, they can express them individually. If they want to express opinions as a large group, they can all sign the same letter or petition. Using company money to do things that only some of the company's owners or employees would assent to is not "free speech"; it's misuse of company money. That used to be called "embezzlement", not free speech. The law can't favor free speech for some corporations/groups (New York Times, MSNBC, UAW, etc.) but not others (non-profit groups like Citizens United). I agree with this; I don't see why the New York Times should get any special privileges because it's a "journalistic organization". But that just means everybody should have to abide by the same rules; it doesn't mean the rules should allow corporations to do things with company money that many if not most of their employees and shareholders would not agree with, just because those things happen to be "speech".
- gwright 14y ago