5 ms·

"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."

mullingitover 12y ago
> subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else." Thank you for this textbook example of the common misunderstanding that the 1st Amendment protects people from all consequences of their speech.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  The 1st Amendment restricts the laws that Congress may pass. Corporations are (in most jurisdictions) formed as a privilege granted by law, and foreign corporations are licensed to operate by law. Of course, that relies upon strict logic, when the justice system relies somewhat upon political expediency and kritarchic traditions. If you believe that free speech is a basic human right, common to all natural persons, then any consequence of any speech, no matter how odious or damaging, is preferable to the consequence of attempting to alter or stifle the words before they are said. But the former can be seen, and the latter cannot. We cannot know the value of speech left unsaid for fear of retaliation. So while the U.S. foundation law does not explicitly protect freedom of speech from any entity other than the U.S. governments, its commercial codes and corporations laws do govern the behavior of incorporated businesses, so in theory, they should contain provisions for stripping away corporate privileges as punishment for engaging in behaviors denied to the government, or be considered unconstitutional otherwise. Such arguments are not likely to go far in the courts, however. Quite a lot of judges own stock in at least one corporation. If you say something I don't like, I can hold it against you personally, and I can direct my unincorporated businesses to do likewise. But I cannot direct a corporation's resources towards viewpoint-based discrimination, even if I own 100% of the voting stock. The realpolitik is that so long as your business makes the proper political campaign contributions, major offenses become minor, and minor offenses are overlooked. Really, the common misunderstanding is that politicians pay more heed to the constitution than their own interests.
  - mullingitover 12y ago
    > But I cannot direct a corporation's resources towards viewpoint-based discrimination, even if I own 100% of the voting stock. Yes, you can. It'd be idiotic if a person could sue a company because said company refused to hire them after it was discovered that the candidate for hire had a long history of being a nazi apologist and holocaust denier. I'm open to correction on this point, but blaming it on rampant corruption in the justice system based on judges' conflict of interest is veering hard into tinfoil hat territory. I'm not a fan of corporate personhood, but at the same time I can completely understand how an entity should be free to decide which persons or companies it does business with, and behavior/speech are totally valid criteria in this decision.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      I am not a lawyer. I believe that in an aggregation of people, the assemblage itself does not have greater rights, powers, or abilities than those possessed by the individual members. It cannot do more than its members. It can, however, by voluntary cartel cooperation, do less. Thus, while people individually have the right and ability to discriminate based on viewpoint, they agreed upon the creation of their government to deny the aggregate that right, as a means to protect its minorities from the agency problem. Corporations, being a creation of that government, cannot assume powers that their creator does not possess. Sole proprietorships and partnerships, being creations of the people directly, can discriminate to the same extent as their creators--as much as they please. Corporations cannot discriminate in that fashion because their creator cannot. The people do not create the corporation. They petition a government to create it and grant full operational control of it to them. That is an important distinction. Allowing the government to create a separate entity under its authority that can do more things than it can is simply abrogating the original cartel agreement. You might as well not have a government acting as the middleman at all. Just raise a private army and do as you please.
      - mullingitover 12y ago
        Wikipedia lays it out pretty clearly[1]: > The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. You're free to disagree and pursue an amendment to change this reality, but this has been settled case law for quite a while now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
jonny_eh 12y ago
1st amendment rights only apply to the government.
- kefka 12y ago
  And government grants corporate charters. They, and we need to remember this fact. And, corporations can be unmade as a punishment.
  - jonny_eh 12y ago
    Do you have a legal precedent to point to? The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the constitution) didn't even apply to state governments until the 14th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...
    - kefka 12y ago
      What precedent would one need? You ask the government for a license to incorporate. You pay some money to facilitate this incorporation. This is no different than a drivers license. The gov't can say yea or nay to that under criterion they decide.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Do you have a legal precedent to point to? For revoking corporate charter? Every jurisdiction which grants them also already reserves the power to revoke them. E.g., Delaware: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284
      - jonny_eh 12y ago
        For revoking a corporate charter for violating a customer or partner's 1st amendment rights.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  No one is claiming that it's illegal. People can give up their rights as long as it's voluntary. It's generally seen as wrong or socially unacceptable to require that though.
mikeash 12y ago
It's also just plain wrong. There are many cases where running to the press has been the solution.

> subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else." Thank you for this textbook example of the common misunderstanding that the 1st Amendment protects people from all consequences of their speech.

logfromblammo 12y ago
The 1st Amendment restricts the laws that Congress may pass. Corporations are (in most jurisdictions) formed as a privilege granted by law, and foreign corporations are licensed to operate by law. Of course, that relies upon strict logic, when the justice system relies somewhat upon political expediency and kritarchic traditions. If you believe that free speech is a basic human right, common to all natural persons, then any consequence of any speech, no matter how odious or damaging, is preferable to the consequence of attempting to alter or stifle the words before they are said. But the former can be seen, and the latter cannot. We cannot know the value of speech left unsaid for fear of retaliation. So while the U.S. foundation law does not explicitly protect freedom of speech from any entity other than the U.S. governments, its commercial codes and corporations laws do govern the behavior of incorporated businesses, so in theory, they should contain provisions for stripping away corporate privileges as punishment for engaging in behaviors denied to the government, or be considered unconstitutional otherwise. Such arguments are not likely to go far in the courts, however. Quite a lot of judges own stock in at least one corporation. If you say something I don't like, I can hold it against you personally, and I can direct my unincorporated businesses to do likewise. But I cannot direct a corporation's resources towards viewpoint-based discrimination, even if I own 100% of the voting stock. The realpolitik is that so long as your business makes the proper political campaign contributions, major offenses become minor, and minor offenses are overlooked. Really, the common misunderstanding is that politicians pay more heed to the constitution than their own interests.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  > But I cannot direct a corporation's resources towards viewpoint-based discrimination, even if I own 100% of the voting stock. Yes, you can. It'd be idiotic if a person could sue a company because said company refused to hire them after it was discovered that the candidate for hire had a long history of being a nazi apologist and holocaust denier. I'm open to correction on this point, but blaming it on rampant corruption in the justice system based on judges' conflict of interest is veering hard into tinfoil hat territory. I'm not a fan of corporate personhood, but at the same time I can completely understand how an entity should be free to decide which persons or companies it does business with, and behavior/speech are totally valid criteria in this decision.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    I am not a lawyer. I believe that in an aggregation of people, the assemblage itself does not have greater rights, powers, or abilities than those possessed by the individual members. It cannot do more than its members. It can, however, by voluntary cartel cooperation, do less. Thus, while people individually have the right and ability to discriminate based on viewpoint, they agreed upon the creation of their government to deny the aggregate that right, as a means to protect its minorities from the agency problem. Corporations, being a creation of that government, cannot assume powers that their creator does not possess. Sole proprietorships and partnerships, being creations of the people directly, can discriminate to the same extent as their creators--as much as they please. Corporations cannot discriminate in that fashion because their creator cannot. The people do not create the corporation. They petition a government to create it and grant full operational control of it to them. That is an important distinction. Allowing the government to create a separate entity under its authority that can do more things than it can is simply abrogating the original cartel agreement. You might as well not have a government acting as the middleman at all. Just raise a private army and do as you please.
    - mullingitover 12y ago
      Wikipedia lays it out pretty clearly[1]: > The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. You're free to disagree and pursue an amendment to change this reality, but this has been settled case law for quite a while now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

jonny_eh 12y ago

1st amendment rights only apply to the government.

kefka 12y ago
And government grants corporate charters. They, and we need to remember this fact. And, corporations can be unmade as a punishment.
- jonny_eh 12y ago
  Do you have a legal precedent to point to? The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the constitution) didn't even apply to state governments until the 14th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...
  - kefka 12y ago
    What precedent would one need? You ask the government for a license to incorporate. You pay some money to facilitate this incorporation. This is no different than a drivers license. The gov't can say yea or nay to that under criterion they decide.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Do you have a legal precedent to point to? For revoking corporate charter? Every jurisdiction which grants them also already reserves the power to revoke them. E.g., Delaware: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284
    - jonny_eh 12y ago
      For revoking a corporate charter for violating a customer or partner's 1st amendment rights.
Houshalter 12y ago
No one is claiming that it's illegal. People can give up their rights as long as it's voluntary. It's generally seen as wrong or socially unacceptable to require that though.

mikeash 12y ago

It's also just plain wrong. There are many cases where running to the press has been the solution.