Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

"the right of the people" includes the right of the group(s)
1st Amendment right to free speech
including the Right to not be censored.

You are excusing corruption because it is old and pervasive.

No, I'm saying your pretended solution to "corruption" is a fraud, based on imposing censorship onto people, in violation of their 1st Amendment rights. And you only pretend that this censorship will produce any benefit, like making "corruption" magically disappear. It will not. The new censorship of political speech called for in the 2002 campaign reform act did not eliminate any "corruption" as you falsely imagine.

Maybe some parts of that law actually did cause some good result. But the part which PROHIBITED political speech or "electioneering communications," was an assault on everyone's 1st Amendment rights. When you deprive anyone of their 1st Amendment rights, it is an assault on all of us, and a threat that the same could happen to others of us. That part of the campaign reform act was rightly struck down by the Court, in protection of basic freedoms for ALL of us.

That action by the Supreme Court in 2010 still stands today as a protection of our rights against possible infringement by the current Regime, and because of that decision, we are a little safer now from having our 1st Amendment rights denied to us. It's good to crusade against corruption, but you must do it without threatening anyone's 1st Amendment right to free speech. The censorship practiced by the FEC, leading to that 2010 decision, did nothing to put an end to any corruption. You can't name anything about that FEC censorship which put any end to corruption.

Why? As ubiquitous, as [corruption] is, it has ALWAYS been bad.

That doesn't entitle you to violate anyone's Constitutional rights. Find ways to oppose corruption without committing your own evil which is even worse. Demagogues (like the current regime) have always pretended that their dictatorial measures were necessary in order to correct some evil, like "corruption" -- and this becomes just the excuse they use to increase their power over the society. Just saying something was always "bad" is not sufficient to justify your dictatorial measures like censorship or suppression of political speech.

There's no apparent "corruption" you can name which might be corrected by means of your censorship solutions. It seems rather that it's not "corruption" that you really care about, but only about censoring something you disagree with and want to suppress (because you hate "corporations"?). And maybe some of that political propaganda or political speech is pretty bad -- maybe a pack of lies, etc. Maybe a solution would entail an investigation or hearing to review the claims made and require those speaking it to produce evidence for their claims -- this need not be an abridgement of free speech, to require those speaking to produce their evidence in a court setting where they must answer questions about it. But censorship or suppression of political speech, such as the FEC did to the Citizens United company, is not a legitimate response.

Why are you endorsing something that is universally acknowledged as bad?

Why are you pretending to fix it by means of something universally acknowledged as bad? Censorship of legitimate political speech is not the way to correct anything, no matter how "bad" it is. Censoring someone from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the only form of censorship that is legitimate -- to stop someone from causing a disaster or widespread injury. But someone publishing political propaganda is not a legitimate threat to the public safety. Your false pretense that you're fighting "corruption" does not entitle you to deprive anyone of their 1st Amendment rights, or to deny free speech to someone who is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or otherwise posing a threat with their speech.

You can't censor a candidate's speech as something dangerous only because you theorize that his policy would lead to a bad outcome. Censorship is not an appropriate response if the only threat posed by that speech is that you disagree with it.

When you let the powerful exploit the system to get more power to inevitably use that power to exploit the people you end up with abuse and suffering. It is a pattern repeated throughout history.

Then stop aiding the powerful government to exploit the system to get more power to deny people their 1st Amendment rights. By doing this you are contributing to a bad pattern throughout history. You can't name one benefit served by the FEC censorship. You are only pretending that this was necessary to put an end to "corruption."

Free speech has never been absolutely free. ALL freedoms granted by the US constitution or otherwise have never been absolutely free.

Of course not. But censorship of open published political speech has never been necessary in order to prevent corruption. You can't name one case where this was ever necessary to protect the public. You might be able to show that some political speech led to a change in the election outcome -- but this is not a legitimate reason for censorship of that political speech. On the contrary, this is just your dictatorial method of suppressing the other side in order to help your side win more votes in that particular election. We can't start out with the premise that your political opposition is wrong and has to be suppressed or the country is doomed. The premise has to be: we don't know for sure which side is correct, so both sides are entitled to be heard, with neither being censored.

Social contracts liberate individuals by restricting them.

Maybe in some ways. But not by censoring political speech. That's not the kind of restriction which liberates anyone. If you think such censorship is sometimes necessary, then give an example. You not only cannot name a real case where censorship of political speech had to be imposed, but you can't name even a hypothetical case.

Choosing where that social contract begins and ends is a job for each society. Recognizing that some speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and . . .

No, not just "some speech" ----- we're talking about political speech, or (more broadly) speech about something controversial or philosophical or theoretical, or beliefs about religion or history or science, where there is disagreement among reasonable people.

. . . Recognizing that some [political] speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and suffering is a legitimate reason for restricting it if a society so chooses.

Then why can't you name any case of this? not even a hypothetical case? What situation would it be? hypothetical situation -- you make up the specifics. You have no example to offer. It's not good enough to speculate that "some speech leads" to abuse etc. Say what that speech would be. Give a specific example of political speech that would lead to abuse and suffering and would have to be censored (banned) to protect the public. This has never happened, and there's no hypothetical case you can name. There's nothing in this country (maybe not any country) where any such censorship has been necessary.

What you can name are possible cases of slander, and this is provided for in existing law, where someone can be sued. There was the case in Georgia, where Rudy Giuliani slandered one of the election workers, and he was convicted and suffered a heavy damage penalty. The law should impose penalty on such slander speech. This is not denial of one's 1st Amendment rights, that they are prohibited from slandering someone. Protection of political speech does not include protection of slander speech.

Some conspiracy theories might be borderline for slander, if certain persons are named by the speaker. Computer companies accused of rigging the vote count might sue for slander. Alex Jones was convicted of slander in his conspiracy claims. And maybe there's ambiguity in some cases, so that's why a court case might be necessary, to determine the facts. But normal political speech, such as the Hillary film, though it's propaganda, is not slander. Political propaganda per se cannot be put into this category -- that it "inevitably leads to suffering and abuse" -- we can't let the demagogues censor our speech based on such a spurious guideline.

A further example of forbidden speech would be incitement to crime. If the "political speech" contained encouragement to start a riot, to kidnap or kill someone, to set off a bomb, etc., then that is criminal speech which can rightly be suppressed. That's not the "political speech" or "electioneering communications" which the 2002 campaign reform bill would censor, or that the FEC suppressed in 2008, as enforcement of the 2002 law.

Besides, no corporation is a person in itself. ... So restricting its speech does nothing to reduce the number of voices or opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

That's a gross distortion of the 1st Amendment. It protects EVERYone's speech, including that of every group of people. Free speech doesn't mean only to maximize the number of voices or opinions, but to protect everyone's freedom to speak, meaning every group as well as every individual.

A group (e.g. corporation) also has a right to free speech, as part of "the people" -- in the 1st Amendment phrase "the right of the people" -- as determined by the Supreme Court. Even prior to Citizens United.

Google Search question: Were corporations recognized as people/persons before Citizens United?

Google answer:

Yes, corporations were recognized as legal "persons" or "persons" for certain rights well before the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision in 2010. This concept of "corporate personhood" evolved over centuries, originating with rights to own property and enter contracts, and later expanding to constitutional protections under the Equal Protection Clause in the 19th century. While Citizens United dealt with free speech rights for corporations in elections, it did not create corporate personhood but rather extended the existing concept of corporate rights to this specific political context.

Key Developments in Corporate Personhood

• Medieval Origins:
  The concept of juridical persons, which includes corporations, emerged in the Middle Ages to facilitate perpetual ownership of assets and allow organizations to act independently of their founders.
  
  
• 19th-Century Expansion:
  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was a pivotal moment, with the Supreme Court granting corporations constitutional protections beyond property and contract rights.
  
  
• Early 20th Century:
  Corporations gained the ability to sue and be sued, further solidifying their status as separate entities with legal rights and responsibilities, distinct from their individual members or shareholders.
  
  
• Citizens United's Focus on Political Speech:
  The 2010 Citizens United decision did not invent corporate personhood; instead, it addressed whether corporations had First Amendment free speech rights to spend money in candidate elections. The Court found that such political spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, overturning a prior restriction on corporate political expenditures.

In essence, the idea of corporations as entities with rights predates Citizens United by a long margin, but the court case significantly expanded the scope of those rights by applying them to corporate political spending.

Google seems to say that corporate personhood was explicitly or literally cited in previous Supreme Court cases. However, there's some ambiguity -- But for certain, without any doubt, no Court ever issued any ruling that "corporations are not people" and are not covered by the 1st Amendment. There were many cases demonstrating that they are "people" or "persons" for purposes of the law, as the text uses those words. Which is all that matters for this topic. I.e., it has nothing to do with silly jokes about corporations having human body parts or being born in a woman's womb or having the right to vote at age 18. It's about the meaning of "persons" or "the people" in the wording or text of the Constitution. And that wording includes ALL groups, including corporations.


To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.


"Corporations are not people" = There is a need in some cases to censor political speech, or suppress it, for the public safety/welfare.

"Corporations are people" = Everyone, all individuals and all groups, no matter how unpopular, are entitled to free speech protection under the 1st Amendment -- no exceptions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

How about the State of Montana, which implemented campaign finance regs in 1912 due to the historical overburden of corporate mining influence on elections?

These laws came into existence because corporations had a disproportionate amount of say and influence in elections.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

How about the State of Montana, which implemented campaign finance regs in 1912 due to the historical overburden of corporate mining influence on elections?

These laws came into existence because corporations had a disproportionate amount of say and influence in elections.

I looked at the above a little, for a few pages, and it says nothing about prohibiting political propaganda or "electioneering communications" etc. Maybe it's there somewhere, but if so, it's a minor part of the reform measures to limit the political power of the mining companies, which were too powerful. By comparison to the FEC censorship in 2008, it doesn't seem there was any censorship of mining company political publications. It was mainly about limiting campaign donations and bribes.

Citizens United upheld laws against political bribery, even laws restricting campaign donations. It only struck down laws which specifically targeted spending on "electioneering communications" -- the gov't may not dictate limits on spending for political propaganda, on recordings or broadcasts or videos with political speech in them which might influence voters in a current election. This is censorship, to dictate limits on spending for the propaganda or publishing. That doesn't seem to be what the Montana reform laws were about.

In any case, it's probably true that there was some censorship in the states. Mainly as part of some reform measures against corruption. And the censorship part was wrong, and not necessary to legitimately curtail the corrupt practices. There was other censorship at the state level also, of literature thought to be pornographic or antireligious etc. Some books were banned. But at the federal level there was never any censorship until the 2002 campaign reform law, enforced by the FEC, which tried to practice censorship.

None of that censorship or suppression of political speech was necessary to serve any legitimate public need. Unlike reforms to curb corruption in various forms, most of which might have been legitimate. It's only the censorship which was not legitimate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

How about the State of Montana, which implemented campaign finance regs in 1912 due to the historical overburden of corporate mining influence on elections?

These laws came into existence because corporations had a disproportionate amount of say and influence in elections.

I looked at the above a little,...

A little? I gave you a legal review paper. Not some blog.

...for a few pages, and it says nothing about prohibiting political propaganda or "electioneering communications" etc. Maybe it's there somewhere, but if so, it's a minor part of the reform measures to limit the political power of the mining companies, which were too powerful. By comparison to the FEC censorship in 2008, it doesn't seem there was any censorship of mining company political publications. It was mainly about limiting campaign donations and bribes.

You didn't read it, or presumably the law. So, I'm uncertain your issue here. Citizen United over-ruled this Montana Law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

You are using circular logic. What you should be ask for is this:

It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to a corporation, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

I will make 5 points in response to this improved query:


1. Separation of corporate speech from individual speech
Just because a corporation is barred from making certain political statements does not mean the individuals associated with it—employees, executives, shareholders—are also prohibited from speaking as private citizens. For example, if the government prohibits a tobacco company from running ads advocating removal of pregnancy warnings on cigarette cartons, individual owners and employees can still personally campaign for that cause. Restricting the corporate voice does not silence the individual voice.

2. National security risk from foreign and oligarchic influence
Hypothetical but realistic: Imagine a corporation receiving 50% of its funding from a mixture of American oligarchs, foreign oligarchs, and foreign governments via dark-money channels. Allowing that corporation to directly engage in political advocacy could serve foreign interests over national ones, creating a clear public safety and national security hazard. That is one valid reason to limit corporate political speech.

3. Divergence between corporate and individual views
Three executives at Corporation X each own stock and work diligently to maximize profits. While on the clock, they speak out against ObamaCare because it’s in the company’s financial interest to oppose it. Off the clock, in private conversations, they admit they actually don’t mind it and believe much of the opposition is exaggerated. This reveals that corporate political speech can be manufactured and insincere—serving profit motives, not genuine political conviction. That undermines the quality and honesty of political discourse.

4. Historical example: corporate deception and public harm
The 20th-century tobacco industry deliberately misled the public and policymakers about the dangers of smoking, funding “scientific” studies and PR campaigns to cast doubt on overwhelming medical evidence. This corporate speech directly delayed public health measures and cost millions of lives. Restricting corporate political advocacy in such cases could have preserved public safety and reduced harm without restricting individuals from expressing pro-tobacco views privately.

5. Hypothetical: corporate speech as a tool for destabilization
Imagine a major tech platform corporation that controls 80% of social media traffic and is secretly majority-owned by interests tied to a hostile foreign power. This corporation begins running highly targeted political campaigns designed to increase polarization, spread disinformation, and erode trust in democratic institutions. The danger to public safety and national stability would justify prohibiting that corporation from engaging in such political advocacy—again, without silencing individual employees or shareholders from expressing their personal political beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

There are no compelling logical or moral reasons to treat a corporation like person. It is a social and political choice.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is a case (historical or hypothetical) where political speech has to be suppressed by the gov't, to protect the public safety or welfare?


To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must be denied to someone, or would have to be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

Jimmy Higgins: How about the State of Montana, which implemented campaign finance regs in 1912 due to the historical overburden of corporate mining influence on elections?

These laws came into existence because corporations had a disproportionate amount of say and influence in elections.

I looked at the above a little,...

A little? I gave you a legal review paper. Not some blog.

...for a few pages, and it says nothing about prohibiting political propaganda or "electioneering communications" etc. Maybe it's there somewhere, but if so, it's a minor part of the reform measures to limit the political power of the mining companies, which were too powerful. By comparison to the FEC censorship in 2008, it doesn't seem there was any censorship of mining company political publications. It was mainly about limiting campaign donations and bribes.

You didn't read it, or presumably the law. So, I'm uncertain your issue here. Citizen United over-ruled this Montana Law.

Why can't you give the specifics? Are you saying that in Montana there was a need for the gov't to limit the free speech rights of the mining companies? Did the Montana law suppress political speech the way the FEC suppressed that film from Citizens United? and that was the only way to protect the public safety/welfare? -- that's the question.

Citizens United overrules the part which has gov't suppress political speech. If that was in the Montana law, then that's the part that was over-ruled. It did not over-rule any law prohibiting bribery or corruption. Probably most of the Montana law was left untouched. Usually "over-rule" means a certain part of the law was over-ruled.

But I'm not claiming to know anything about that Montana law. If you know the specifics of it, then tell it. You haven't so far, so I can only speculate. I doubt that everything in that law was overturned by Citizens United. But give us the details if you know them. So far you haven't shown that there was a need for political free speech rights to be suppressed.

The pertinent question I'm asking here is about this point made by Zorq:

Recognizing that some speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and suffering is a legitimate reason for restricting it if a society so chooses.

I'm questioning whether there really is any such situation where political speech leads inevitably to abuse and suffering which calls for a restriction on that speech. I'm saying there is no such "legitimate reason for restricting" political speech. That's the issue.

Now, are you saying that in Montana there was political speech by the mining companies which had to be restricted because it inevitably led to abuse and suffering? i.e., to some intolerably harmful consequences for society? and so therefore that law was necessary to restrict the free speech of those mining companies? i.e., to suppress the political speech of those companies? to censor them?

So far you haven't made that case. It's OK to give a link to something, but that's not enough. There wasn't anything in that site you gave which laid out the facts showing the need for censorship of the companies. Maybe I missed it. But if you know it's there, quote it. Don't give us a long quote which is mostly not pertinent, so it's necessary to search for the critical part. Or you could highlight the critical part.

Citizens United did NOT overrule all the campaign funding laws, or spending limit laws. It said gov't may not abridge the 1st Amendment rights of corporations when it tries to regulate political spending by the corporations. If it avoids violating free speech rights of the corporations while putting limits on political spending, then those limits are still allowed.

But if the law says in effect: "You cannot spend that much money on political speech" because it's political and might influence voters, etc., then that's overruled. That in effect is suppression of political speech and violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Elixir]

"Corporations are people" = Everyone, all individuals and all groups, no matter how unpopular, are entitled to free speech protection under the 1st Amendment -- no exceptions.

Sounds fine.
IRL though, it means that if you can spend more money than the other guy, you can buy elections. So the rich rule, which they now do.
If the person wielding the most money decides to buy a Presidency, even if they’re a foreign head of State’s proxy, it’s perfectly fine because that individual’s “speech” must not be constrained no matter how overwhelmingly loud their voice or corrupt their motive.
If said President, picked by the person with the money and installed by the gullible public, exercises the powers vested in him by SCOTUS (largely picked by the same person) to turn our democracy into A FUCKING NAZI POLICE STATE … hey, the people have spoken! Who are we to object?
I suppose you could call it some perversion of an aristocracy, until the dumfuk who gained the presidency via those principles opens his pie hole.

 

[zorq]

"the right of the people" includes the right of the group(s)
1st Amendment right to free speech
including the Right to not be censored.

You are excusing corruption because it is old and pervasive.

Any person gets 1st amendment rights. A corporation isn't a person.

No, I'm saying your pretended solution to "corruption" is a fraud, based on imposing censorship onto people, in violation of their 1st Amendment rights. And you only pretend that this censorship will produce any benefit, like making "corruption" magically disappear. It will not. The new censorship of political speech called for in the 2002 campaign reform act did not eliminate any "corruption" as you falsely imagine.

Who says its a "solution"? Who says it will magically disappear? I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth. It's just mild medicine to help address one source of corruption. You're the one doing the imagining.

Maybe some parts of that law actually did cause some good result. But the part which PROHIBITED political speech or "electioneering communications," was an assault on everyone's 1st Amendment rights. When you deprive anyone of their 1st Amendment rights, it is an assault on all of us, and a threat that the same could happen to others of us. That part of the campaign reform act was rightly struck down by the Court, in protection of basic freedoms for ALL of us.

I'm not a corporation. I'm a person. It didn't affect me at all.

That action by the Supreme Court in 2010 still stands today as a protection of our rights against possible infringement by the current Regime, and because of that decision, we are a little safer now from having our 1st Amendment rights denied to us. It's good to crusade against corruption, but you must do it without threatening anyone's 1st Amendment right to free speech. The censorship practiced by the FEC, leading to that 2010 decision, did nothing to put an end to any corruption. You can't name anything about that FEC censorship which put any end to corruption.

Again. Nobody says it would or should "end" corruption. Your imagination has got the better of you.

Why? As ubiquitous, as [corruption] is, it has ALWAYS been bad.

That doesn't entitle you to violate anyone's Constitutional rights. Find ways to oppose corruption without committing your own evil which is even worse. Demagogues (like the current regime) have always pretended that their dictatorial measures were necessary in order to correct some evil, like "corruption" -- and this becomes just the excuse they use to increase their power over the society. Just saying something was always "bad" is not sufficient to justify your dictatorial measures like censorship or suppression of political speech.

No person's speech is censored when restricting corporate speech. A corporation isn't a person. No harm. No foul.

There's no apparent "corruption" you can name which might be corrected by means of your censorship solutions. It seems rather that it's not "corruption" that you really care about, but only about censoring something you disagree with and want to suppress (because you hate "corporations"?). And maybe some of that political propaganda or political speech is pretty bad -- maybe a pack of lies, etc. Maybe a solution would entail an investigation or hearing to review the claims made and require those speaking it to produce evidence for their claims -- this need not be an abridgement of free speech, to require those speaking to produce their evidence in a court setting where they must answer questions about it. But censorship or suppression of political speech, such as the FEC did to the Citizens United company, is not a legitimate response.

LOL. Your imagination is really getting the best of you. Now I hate corporations? LOL. The corruption I oppose is pervasive. You need examples of corruption that cause harm? Are you really that sheltered from the world?
Haliburton and Blackwater -> Corruption in the form of political donations/ leads to policy and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan profiting the corporation. Private detention centers including Aligator Alcatraz => Corruption in the form of political donations leads to policy and the suffering of thousands of asylum seekers and legal residents to turn a profit for Detention contractors. Maybe you don't care about the suffering of actual real people , but I do. Questioning the danger of corruption only demonstrates your cluelessness.

Why are you endorsing something that is universally acknowledged as bad?

Why are you pretending to fix it by means of something universally acknowledged as bad?

I'm not. I'm just trying to treat some of the infection vectors.

Censorship of legitimate political speech is not the way to correct anything, no matter how "bad" it is. Censoring someone from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the only form of censorship that is legitimate -- to stop someone from causing a disaster or widespread injury. But someone publishing political propaganda is not a legitimate threat to the public safety. Your false pretense that you're fighting "corruption" does not entitle you to deprive anyone of their 1st Amendment rights, or to deny free speech to someone who is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or otherwise posing a threat with their speech.

Good thing corporation isn't a person then!

You can't censor a candidate's speech as something dangerous only because you theorize that his policy would lead to a bad outcome. Censorship is not an appropriate response if the only threat posed by that speech is that you disagree with it.

True!

When you let the powerful exploit the system to get more power to inevitably use that power to exploit the people you end up with abuse and suffering. It is a pattern repeated throughout history.

Then stop aiding the powerful government to exploit the system to get more power to deny people their 1st Amendment rights. By doing this you are contributing to a bad pattern throughout history. You can't name one benefit served by the FEC censorship. You are only pretending that this was necessary to put an end to "corruption."

No person was harmed in the censorship of corporations!

Free speech has never been absolutely free. ALL freedoms granted by the US constitution or otherwise have never been absolutely free.

Of course not. But censorship of open published political speech has never been necessary in order to prevent corruption. You can't name one case where this was ever necessary to protect the public.

Well, if the corruption was prevented we wouldn't know about it would we? But have you never thought about Tobacco? R J Reynolds was donating millions of dollars to political assets to reduce regulations and taxes on their products, while lying to the public about the harmful effects of Tobacco that they were aware of. Restricting their access to political influence could have saved millions of lives.

You might be able to show that some political speech led to a change in the election outcome -- but this is not a legitimate reason for censorship of that political speech. On the contrary, this is just your dictatorial method of suppressing the other side in order to help your side win more votes in that particular election. We can't start out with the premise that your political opposition is wrong and has to be suppressed or the country is doomed. The premise has to be: we don't know for sure which side is correct, so both sides are entitled to be heard, with neither being censored.

"My side?" Again you are assuming motivations that aren't in evidence. Don't assume. This paragraph is all BS.

Social contracts liberate individuals by restricting them.

Maybe in some ways. But not by censoring political speech. That's not the kind of restriction which liberates anyone. If you think such censorship is sometimes necessary, then give an example. You not only cannot name a real case where censorship of political speech had to be imposed, but you can't name even a hypothetical case.

You're moving goalposts all over the place, but sure: Lying Tobacco companies knowingly used corruption to boost their bottom line at the cost of public health. Corruption kills. I'm not saying censoring the tobacco companies was necessary to prevent that health disaster, but merely that it would have mitigated it. You are always talking in absolutes as if I had any of these opinions. You make a fool of yourself every time you make that assumption.

Choosing where that social contract begins and ends is a job for each society. Recognizing that some speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and . . .

No, not just "some speech" ----- we're talking about political speech, or (more broadly) speech about something controversial or philosophical or theoretical, or beliefs about religion or history or science, where there is disagreement among reasonable people.

Which includes "SOME SPEECH." What's your point?

. . . Recognizing that some [political] speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and suffering is a legitimate reason for restricting it if a society so chooses.

Then why can't you name any case of this? not even a hypothetical case? What situation would it be? hypothetical situation -- you make up the specifics. You have no example to offer. It's not good enough to speculate that "some speech leads" to abuse etc. Say what that speech would be. Give a specific example of political speech that would lead to abuse and suffering and would have to be censored (banned) to protect the public. This has never happened, and there's no hypothetical case you can name. There's nothing in this country (maybe not any country) where any such censorship has been necessary.

Why are you making all these assumptions? What the fuck are you talking about? How fucking rude. You didn't ask me for an example before this post and then later on in the post you accuse me of not being able to provide an example? WTF are you on? Get off your fucking high horse and you might learn something that you didn't pull out of your ass.

What you can name are possible cases of slander, and this is provided for in existing law, where someone can be sued. There was the case in Georgia, where Rudy Giuliani slandered one of the election workers, and he was convicted and suffered a heavy damage penalty. The law should impose penalty on such slander speech. This is not denial of one's 1st Amendment rights, that they are prohibited from slandering someone. Protection of political speech does not include protection of slander speech.

Some conspiracy theories might be borderline for slander, if certain persons are named by the speaker. Computer companies accused of rigging the vote count might sue for slander. Alex Jones was convicted of slander in his conspiracy claims. And maybe there's ambiguity in some cases, so that's why a court case might be necessary, to determine the facts. But normal political speech, such as the Hillary film, though it's propaganda, is not slander. Political propaganda per se cannot be put into this category -- that it "inevitably leads to suffering and abuse" -- we can't let the demagogues censor our speech based on such a spurious guideline.

A further example of forbidden speech would be incitement to crime. If the "political speech" contained encouragement to start a riot, to kidnap or kill someone, to set off a bomb, etc., then that is criminal speech which can rightly be suppressed. That's not the "political speech" or "electioneering communications" which the 2002 campaign reform bill would censor, or that the FEC suppressed in 2008, as enforcement of the 2002 law.

Besides, no corporation is a person in itself. ... So restricting its speech does nothing to reduce the number of voices or opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

That's a gross distortion of the 1st Amendment. It protects EVERYone's speech, including that of every group of people. Free speech doesn't mean only to maximize the number of voices or opinions, but to protect everyone's freedom to speak, meaning every group as well as every individual.

A group (e.g. corporation) also has a right to free speech, as part of "the people" -- in the 1st Amendment phrase "the right of the people" -- as determined by the Supreme Court. Even prior to Citizens United.

A corporation isn't a just a "Group of people."
A group of people who conspire to shoplift 1/10th of the beer on display at the convenience store get prosecuted, criminal records, and possible jail time. A corporation that conspires to skim 10% of the beer delivery into their treasury gets a slap on the wrist fine and their business license suspended. Why? Because a corporation isn't just a "group of people."

A corporation isn't even necessarily more than one person. Some corporations are solely owned by one person and do the bidding of that single person. That corporation isn't any kind of "group" of people at all. And some corporations exist with exactly ZERO human individuals influencing them? How? Well, when the only person controlling the corporation dies unexpectedly, the corporation doesn't just die too. That corporation continues to exist as a corporation with exactly zero people influencing it until probate finds a successor to inherit the assets and/or debt belonging to the corporation.

So A corporation isn't always controlled by a "group of people" and it isn't always even controlled by people at all? And it continues to exist. Why? Because a corporation ISN'T a fucking person! It's an immortal ephemeral legal construct! One more time? A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON! A CORPORATION IS NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE! CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE!

Google Search question: Were corporations recognized as people/persons before Citizens United?

Google answer:

Yes, corporations were recognized as legal "persons" or "persons" for certain rights well before the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision in 2010. This concept of "corporate personhood" evolved over centuries, originating with rights to own property and enter contracts, and later expanding to constitutional protections under the Equal Protection Clause in the 19th century. While Citizens United dealt with free speech rights for corporations in elections, it did not create corporate personhood but rather extended the existing concept of corporate rights to this specific political context.

Key Developments in Corporate Personhood

• Medieval Origins:
  The concept of juridical persons, which includes corporations, emerged in the Middle Ages to facilitate perpetual ownership of assets and allow organizations to act independently of their founders.
  
  
• 19th-Century Expansion:
  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was a pivotal moment, with the Supreme Court granting corporations constitutional protections beyond property and contract rights.
  
  
• Early 20th Century:
  Corporations gained the ability to sue and be sued, further solidifying their status as separate entities with legal rights and responsibilities, distinct from their individual members or shareholders.
  
  
• Citizens United's Focus on Political Speech:
  The 2010 Citizens United decision did not invent corporate personhood; instead, it addressed whether corporations had First Amendment free speech rights to spend money in candidate elections. The Court found that such political spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, overturning a prior restriction on corporate political expenditures.

In essence, the idea of corporations as entities with rights predates Citizens United by a long margin, but the court case significantly expanded the scope of those rights by applying them to corporate political spending.

Google seems to say that corporate personhood was explicitly or literally cited in previous Supreme Court cases. However, there's some ambiguity -- But for certain, without any doubt, no Court ever issued any ruling that "corporations are not people" and are not covered by the 1st Amendment.

They don't have to because it is obvious to ANYONE with eyes and a brain that a corporation is not a person. I notice that no court as ever declared that dogs aren't automobiles either. I wonder why?

There were many cases demonstrating that they are "people" or "persons" for purposes of the law, as the text uses those words. Which is all that matters for this topic. I.e., it has nothing to do with silly jokes about corporations having human body parts or being born in a woman's womb or having the right to vote at age 18. It's about the meaning of "persons" or "the people" in the wording or text of the Constitution. And that wording includes ALL groups, including corporations.


To reiterate: It's critical to give an example where political speech rights must* be denied to someone,** or would have to* be, to preserve public safety. Either a real case historically, or even a hypothetical case.

*No. not "Must" , not "have to" just "would contribute to" Not everything is an absolute. Merely helping to solve a problem is great because not all problems can be solved completely. And some problems can be solved completely but require more than one measure so advocating for one part of the solution to a problem is sufficient.

And corruption is precisely a problem that hurts people.

**Also, Not "Someone" in this case we are talking about corporations. And a corporation isn't a fucking person. In this case we are talking about "SOMETHING."

"Corporations are not people" = There is a need in some cases to censor political speech, or suppress it, for the public safety/welfare.

"Corporations are people" = Everyone, all individuals and all groups, no matter how unpopular, are entitled to free speech protection under the 1st Amendment -- no exceptions.

What is this? Are you trying to redefine these sentences?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

HARTMANN DISHONESTY SCORE (scoring update, June 10 - August 11)

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)


SCORE June 10 - Aug. 11

June

10: 4-0-0
11: 1-0-0
12: 0-0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0-0
17: omitted from the survey
18: 2-0-0
19: 2-0-0
20: 0-0-0
23: 0-0-0
24: 4-0-1
25: 1-0-0
26: 2-0-0

(2 weeks omitted, Hartmann gone until July 14)

19 - 0 - 1 total June

July

14: 1-0-0
15: omitted from survey
16: 1-0-0
17: 2-0-0
18: 2-0-0
21: 2-0-0
22: omitted from survey
23: 2-0-0
24: 2-0-0
25: 1-0-0
28: omitted from survey (Thom Hartmann absent. All days when he's absent are omitted from the survey, to keep it less complicated.)
29: 2-0-0
30: 1-0-0
31: 1-0-0
total July 17-0-0 + June 19-0-1 = 36-0-1

August

01: 2-0-0
04: 1-0-0
05: 1-0-0
06: (omitted from survey)
07: 1-0-0
08: 2-0-0
11: 1-0-0
12: (to be omitted from survey)
____________________
44 - 0 - 1 total to date

44 "times at bat," 0 hits, one "base-on-balls"
batting average still .000
(survey/test resumes 8/13)

44 = total number of times he mentioned the Citizens United case (June 10 - Aug. 11).
00 = total number of times he acknowledged that this case was about the FEC suppressing the political film Hillary: The Movie.
01 = one time he presented the Court's argument for its decision to overrule the FEC (quoting Justice Kennedy who explained the Court's ruling in the case)

Thom Hartmann almost never has the honesty to acknowledge that the case was about censorship, i.e., the FEC being overruled in its action to prohibit the political film from being presented in the media during the election period of 2008, thus that it was a censorship case where the Court upheld 1st Amendment free speech rights. He virtually never mentions this, but instead only repeats the "corporations are not people" slogan and the slogan that the case was about legalizing bribery of politicians by corporations.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in this wording suggests that GROUPS of people are not part of "the people" which are protected. "Establishment of religion" and "free exercise" of religion is virtually always a GROUP act, not a single individual act. And "press" and "assemble" are virtually always about a group doing it, not just one individual alone. The word "individual" is totally absent here. The meaning is all-encompassing, including "people" in the broadest sense -- including all groups, of any kind.


A GROUP of people = "PEOPLE" ("the people")
(any group, corporations and NONcorporations)

And we cannot deprive them of the same rights others have only because they make profits.

This assumes that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals by default, which . . .

No, it assumes that corporations are entitled to the same rights as NONcorporate groups, like a partnership or sole proprietorship or family business or the local sewing club or rodeo show or taco stand or Black Lives Matter or Farmers' Market or Neighborhood Watch, or a noncorporate church (United Methodist Church, Branch Davidians, Church of Christ) etc. No reason is given why these noncorporate groups are entitled to more rights than corporations.

. . .which is not how constitutional rights work. Rights belong to people, and courts sometimes extend limited rights to corporations only . . .

But corporations already have the same basic rights as everyone else, individuals, groups, etc. Just because rights are not specifically the exact same for every group and every individual doesn't mean corporations are in a special category not having the same basic rights as everyone else. If you can name something exceptional for a particular corporation such that it poses a threat to society, maybe an exception can be made. So, what is that exception? What's the threat if this company (Citizens United e.g.) is allowed free speech? what's the impending disaster such that a particular corporation's free speech rights must be curtailed? or such that speech of corporations generally must be curtailed? No one has answered this.

Abstract generalizations about corporations being different somehow doesn't answer this. So some of them make a lot of money, but the vast majority do not. So, what's the point? What's the threat posed by "corporations" which requires that they must submit to these extra free speech limits you want to impose on them?

. . . limited rights to corporations only when necessary to . . .

No, no more "limited" than to other groups. ALL groups including corporations have the same basic 1st Amendment rights without needing any special extension of rights from courts, or special Act of Congress for certain cases. It's rather the opposite -- if there's an exception in some case, that a particular corporation needs to be limited, maybe a special act by Congress or by a court could provide that condition. Not every group has exactly the same specific rights in every imaginable circumstance. But all "people" (groups and individuals) have the basic free speech guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

. . . rights to corporations only when necessary to protect the rights of the individuals behind them.

What special court action was necessary to "extend" special rights to corporations which they otherwise did not have? Free speech rights are not something exceptional which requires any special "extension" of anything. Free speech is a fundamental right guaranteed to all people, including all GROUPS of people, regardless whether they are corporations. No special extension is required without which corporations have no rights. Rather, if you're going to deprive them of the basic rights they already have (as the FEC did to Citizens United in 2008), some special action is needed to justify this denial of their basic rights, because free speech is a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone (including every group), by default, and to abridge this right is an irregularity which requires an explanation, how the public safety or welfare would be threatened otherwise.

The concern isn’t that they make a profit — it’s that they can translate profits into political power, far beyond what any individual could . . .

No, the vast majority of corporations have no such profits, no ability to extend any profit or power "far beyond" anyone else. Again you're just obsessing on the megacorporations, which are less than 1% of corporations. There are plenty of noncorporations which have vastly more assets than the average (for-profit) corporation. There are wealthy family companies and other noncorporates which are into the muti-billion dollar range, far above the vast majority of (for-profit) corporations which are tiny by comparison. There are individual tycoons who can easily outspend 99% of for-profit corporations. So it's not true that "they" can translate profits into power far beyond what any individual could.

. . . what any individual could wield. No one is saying corporations can’t function or speak; the question . . .

In 2008 the FEC suppressed the film from Citizens United -- meaning that this company was prevented from speaking or presenting its political propaganda at that time. This was denial of free speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. So at that point they could not function or speak as they chose and as it was their right to do.

the question is whether they should be allowed to spend unlimited money to influence elections as if they were individual citizens.

And still no one is giving any reason why not (as long as it's not about unlimited donations to a candidate). This censorship was about limits on "electioneering communications" (political speech) that is censored by the campaign reform law of 2002 and which the FEC acted upon when it suppressed the Hillary film. No one is answering why such censorship of political speech should be imposed onto any group, such as the FEC denied free speech, acting on that law.

Every group and individual is entitled to spend "unlimited money" (however much they wish) on political propaganda (electioneering communications), with the only qualifier that you cannot give unlimited donations to a political candidate. This free speech freedom is anyone's right, regardless whether it might influence someone's vote or might change the outcome of an election. Never was there a need to suppress free speech in order to prevent someone from influencing voters or an election outcome. Freedom of political speech is not provided to us only on the condition that we're prohibited from influencing someone.

When the framers enacted the 1st Amendment (free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, etc.), it was not conditioned on some qualifier that the free speech is allowed only if it won't influence voters or an election outcome. No, we have free speech for all purposes, even if it might influence a voter or cause a political outcome someone disagrees with. There are plenty of voices to influence people one way or the other, or to cause some change to happen. There's no need to fine-tune the system to force the free speech to result in only certain allowed outcomes, determined by those in power who decide what outcomes are allowed vs. which ones to prevent by means of suppressing free speech.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Your Hate (for something you can't identify but falsely label "corporations") is not a sufficient reason to deprive them (the ACLU and other corporations) of their Constitutional rights.

the law routinely imposes different tax burdens and regulations on different types of entities.

Of course, for certain reasons in each case, for this or that entity, for reasons of practicality. But what is the reason to deprive an entity of their Constitutional rights, 1st Amendment rights like free speech? There's a PRACTICAL reason why jurors are deprived of their free speech, or part of it -- they are prohibited to discuss the case, the evidence, and must confine this to only the court proceedings and the deliberating period. It's for a specific need, to maintain the integrity of the truth-seeking process going on in the courtroom. The need for it is served, but it's limited to only that period of the court case, to minimize the limit on the jurors' free speech rights -- no more than the minimum needed. Even prisoners are entitled to their rights -- though their liberty is greatly curtailed.

We probably curtail the rights of prisoners and others more than we should. There's really no reason why prisoners should not have full free speech rights, as far as freedom to publish something political or controversial. So there are other aspects of free speech where changes are needed in the direction of allowing MORE freedom.

What public need is served by depriving someone of their free speech rights? to suppress political speech? ban a film? a recording?

But that’s precisely the point — corporations are treated differently because they are different, legally and structurally.

Lots of thing are different than other things, structurally and legally. How does that require an abrogation of someone's free speech? Corporations are groups, like all the other groups, entitled to basic 1st Amendment rights. This was affirmed in the 2010 decision, and this did not overturn any previous Supreme Court decision saying corporations did not have free speech rights. Many entities are treated differently, legally and structurally, but that doesn't mean their 1st Amendment rights disappear. Find a legitimate way to treat them differently, not an illegitimate way such as depriving them of their basic rights.

If we recognize that they can be taxed differently or held to different standards for liability or disclosure, then it’s reasonable to also treat their political influence differently.

No, not deny their free speech rights, not censor their film or book or publication or political propaganda. There is nothing wrong with publishing something political, with the intention of influencing voters or whoever. The freedom to do this, and spend one's money on it, should be just as safeguarded as the freedom to spend one's money on a mansion or a private jet or yacht. It might be legitimate to put a tax on such expenditures, just like taxes on a yacht etc. It might be considered as similar to a luxury, so like a luxury tax.

Recognizing this isn’t punishment — it’s acknowledging their unique nature and the potential distortion of democratic processes

No, there's no distortion. Influencing others with your propaganda is not a distortion of anything, as long as everyone is free to do it and no one is ever a captive audience forced to be subjected to someone else's propaganda. It must always be a free choice. And a listener or viewer of TV or Internet is always free to switch to a different program or channel.

All the influences on the "democratic processes" are legitimate and are not a "distortion" of anything. Except something like fraudulently manipulating the vote count, by stealing ballots etc. Everyone wishes to have more influence than they have, and thinks others have too much power. There is no way to single out certain ones and say their particular influence is improper. Just because they could spend more than others does not make their influence a "distortion" which has to be suppressed or censored.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If "Corporations are not people"
who else is "not people"?

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

So anyone (any group) taxed on their (its) profits rather than revenues is "not people"? By that rule, it's not only "corporations" which are "not people," but ALL businesses big and small, including partnerships, independent contractors, family businesses, sole proprietorships, and all other unincorporated businesses.

So the cliché "corporations are not people" really has to mean "businesses are not people" in order to be correct. I.e., the barbershop, the garden shop, the grocery -- they're "not people."

So also street vendor and most shoe shiner and janitor businesses are "not people," and also most street-sweeper and taxi-driver and pizza-delivery services are "not people," because the workers are independent contractors taxed on their profits rather than their revenues. Also plumbing and electrical repair services. And home improvement services, swimming pool construction, bathroom remodeling, etc.

So the cliché "corporations are not people" really means all businesses are not people and have no 1st Amendment rights -- no right to free speech or free press or free assembly, etc. Or even further: all groups of any kind are "not people" -- a church, a club, a school, a party, a meeting, a hospital, a village, a town, a neighborhood, a tribe, a softball team, etc.

All these "not people" groups today are free to publish political propaganda if they choose to -- there's no restriction on them limiting their political speech, i.e., no law, like a campaign reform law.

-- not even before Citizens United, from 2002 when the election campaign reform act was enacted, under which corporations and labor unions were subjected to special restrictions not imposed on anyone else. If these "not people" groups can somehow raise millions of $$$ for it, they can spend unlimited funds on any political cause (other than donating directly to a candidate's campaign), and produce "electioneering communications" during an election. Why should it be different for corporations? It's not because corporations are taxed on their profits rather than their revenues.

You're good at chanting "Corporations are not people!"
But you're unable to say what makes "corporations" different, or what "not people" means.

So far everyone here arguing "corporations are not people" is failing to say something about corporations per se which makes them special, needing to have particular prohibitions imposed onto their political speech. What is basically different about "corporations"?

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

This says the difference is that corporations pay taxes on their profits instead of on their revenues, as if all others pay taxes on their revenues and only corporations pay taxes on their profits, which is false. ALL businesses pay taxes on their profits, and almost none pays taxes on their revenues. Yet no one is proposing any prohibitions against all businesses to restrict their political speech, as the campaign reform law of 2002 did, singling out "corporations" and "labor unions" distinctly as special groups which are to be denied their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment.

Why can't anyone say what it is that makes corporations and labor unions uniquely special such that they alone must be categorized in the law as "not people" and needing to be restricted? The FEC issued official rules (based on the 2002 law) which "prohibited" these 2 types of entities -- corporations and labor unions -- from political speech called "electioneering communications." And no one can explain why. What is prohibition of speech? It's censorship, like book banning, suppression of rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Instead of giving any explanation for this discrimination against "corporations" and "labor unions," the crusaders for denying free speech can only keep repeating their dog-whistle slogan -- "corporations are not people" -- or give falsehoods -- corporations are CREATED by the state -- or tell us something about corporations which is just as true for ALL businesses rather than only corporations.

When will someone finally admit: There is nothing special about "corporations" such that they are "not people" and need special restrictions put onto their political speech which are not to be imposed onto any others.

When you can't do anything but keep repeating your slogans and giving falsehoods to defend your bias, and you demand something you cannot explain, you resemble more and more a cult, like the Trumpist cult. You have your Trump-messiah speech-maker gurus, like Bernie Sanders and AOC and Thom Hartmann, who keep chanting this slogan at you -- "corporations are not people!" -- triggering an impulse in you, like a Pavlovian dog feels an impulse and salivates when it hears the bell ring, and instead of questioning the slogan, you repeat it over and over again, imagining that the repetition of it makes it true. Just like a cult disciple does.

You are a cult -- you and your gurus who keep repeating this slogan and demanding that a Supreme Court ruling must be overturned, a ruling which simply re-affirmed the 1st Amendment rights which until 2002 applied to everyone, including all groups.

correction (I lied): these rights did NOT apply to Blacks in the South, you can argue. So you do have this one argument you could use: You could use the precedent of slavery as an argument to justify your claim that not all groups are covered by the 1st Amendment, because some are "not people" -- that's your best argument why Citizens United should be overturned.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If "Corporations are not people"
who else is "not people"?

Cars, Marriage Contracts, Deities, Estates, Ghosts, Religious entities, and Ships.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If "Corporations are not people"
who else is "not people"?

Cars, Marriage Contracts, Deities, Estates, Ghosts, Religious entities, and Ships.

This response proves my point: The fanatics are driven by a stubborn refusal to recognize an obvious fact. I.e., the fact that
All businesses of any kind, big and small, are "not people."

I.e., the electrical repair service, the taxi service, the landscaping & gardening service, the local grocery, the street vendor, the pizza delivery service, the laundry service, the street-sweeper service, the computer repair service, etc. etc. etc. -- thousands of businesses. Some of them are incorporated, but the majority are not, but are independent contractors of one kind or another, unincorporated. And all of them are "not people" just as the "corporations" are "not people" -- and yet the crusader-fanatics who chant "Corporations are not people! Corporations are not people!" over and over again, here in these pages and elsewhere on the Internet, etc. -- they all cannot grasp or handle this simple fact --- certain facts just blow up in their face, because it casts doubt on their slogan "Corporations are not people" which they must recite every day in order to live their lives and nurture some hidden HATE they have, which they can't recognize --- like the witch-hunters centuries ago could not recognize the HATE inside them which drove them on.

People driven by a deep IMPULSE they can't recognize, which blinds them to the simple facts of life, which cause them to blurt out that someone is "not people" and other lies which make them feel good -- such people are a

religious cult.

There's no other way to explain such mindless habitual behavior. They will continue to simply ignore the fact that ALL BUSINESSES are "not people" if we take them seriously. And yet they can't admit this and must pretend the question wasn't asked (like Trump or his press secretary must ignore the difficult questions) and can only continue reciting their slogans, as many here will continue to recite their chant that "Corporations are not people!" and they must keep reciting this slogan over and over again, like a religious dogma, or chant, which has no truth other than just the repeating of it again and again, in order to instill a certain HATE they need to spread, or strengthen in the followers, to keep them firmly secured within the dogmas of their cult. In the case of their political party cult, like that of the Republicans, they cannot preserve or prolong their cult without such slogans and such addictive behavior, practiced regularly, even daily, as part of their religious cult ritual.

They will never give up their sacred dogma symbol slogans, no matter how many times they are questioned again and again to explain it and answer the questions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Individuals are not corporations. A sole proprietor running a pizza shop or a street vendor is a person. They don’t need a legal fiction to exist. Their speech is their own speech, and no one denies them that right. A corporation, by contrast, is a legal construct that can own property, sign contracts, and even outlive the people who created it. That’s not the same thing as a human being.

Corporations are treated as “persons” only in narrow legal senses. The law sometimes calls corporations “persons” so they can be sued or held liable, but this is a convenience, not a metaphysical truth. Just like a marriage contract or an estate can be treated as an entity for legal purposes without anyone actually believing it is a flesh-and-blood human.

Corporate speech is artificial and redundant. When a corporation engages in political speech, it is not the authentic expression of an individual’s views. It is an employee or executive speaking “on the clock,” advancing whatever position is thought to maximize the company’s profit or strategic advantage. That may or may not match their actual personal convictions, and often doesn’t. In this sense, corporate political speech is either redundant (since the individuals involved could express those views on their own) or fictional (since it represents only the fiduciary goals of a perpetual, profit-seeking construct). Removing such speech doesn’t silence anyone—it just removes a ventriloquist’s dummy from the public square.

The political spectrum of organizations matters. Not all incorporated entities are the same. A 501(c)(3) or other nonprofit may be explicitly formed around an ideological purpose, with transparent rules, a declared mission, and often some method of democratic or member-based governance. That’s different from a for-profit corporation whose overriding duty is to shareholders and profit growth. Treating “corporations” as a monolith misses this spectrum. The core issue is whether an entity’s speech represents real people expressing convictions—or whether it is a financial machine projecting views for strategic gain.

So the slogan “corporations are not people” is not a cult mantra—it’s a shorthand for a basic democratic safeguard. Citizens, with their consciences and votes, are the ones democracy is built to serve. Corporations are tools—legal fictions created to facilitate commerce. When those tools are allowed to speak politically as if they were citizens, we mistake an echo for a voice, and profit for principle.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

If "Corporations are not people"
who else is "not people"?

Cars, Marriage Contracts, Deities, Estates, Ghosts, Religious entities, and Ships.

This response proves my point: The fanatics are driven by a stubborn refusal to recognize an obvious fact. I.e., the fact that
All businesses of any kind, big and small, are "not people."

I.e., the electrical repair service, the taxi service, the landscaping & gardening service, the local grocery, the street vendor, the pizza delivery service, the laundry service, the street-sweeper service, the computer repair service, etc. etc. etc. -- thousands of businesses. Some of them are incorporated, but the majority are not, but are independent contractors of one kind or another, unincorporated. And all of them are "not people" just as the "corporations" are "not people" -- and yet the crusader-fanatics who chant "Corporations are not people! Corporations are not people!" over and over again, here in these pages and elsewhere on the Internet, etc. -- they all cannot grasp or handle this simple fact --- certain facts just blow up in their face, because it casts doubt on their slogan "Corporations are not people" which they must recite every day in order to live their lives and nurture some hidden HATE they have, which they can't recognize --- like the witch-hunters centuries ago could not recognize the HATE inside them which drove them on.

People driven by a deep IMPULSE they can't recognize, which blinds them to the simple facts of life, which cause them to blurt out that someone is "not people" and other lies which make them feel good -- such people are a

religious cult.

There's no other way to explain such mindless habitual behavior. They will continue to simply ignore the fact that ALL BUSINESSES are "not people" if we take them seriously. And yet they can't admit this and must pretend the question wasn't asked (like Trump or his press secretary must ignore the difficult questions) and can only continue reciting their slogans, as many here will continue to recite their chant that "Corporations are not people!" and they must keep reciting this slogan over and over again, like a religious dogma, or chant, which has no truth other than just the repeating of it again and again, in order to instill a certain HATE they need to spread, or strengthen in the followers, to keep them firmly secured within the dogmas of their cult. In the case of their political party cult, like that of the Republicans, they cannot preserve or prolong their cult without such slogans and such addictive behavior, practiced regularly, even daily, as part of their religious cult ritual.

They will never give up their sacred dogma symbol slogans, no matter how many times they are questioned again and again to explain it and answer the questions.

You are actually right about one thing. Businesses are not people. They may be operated by people (just like a car or other vehicles are) but they are not people. Similarly people may work for them, but they are not the business; they are separate entities.
Its a small starting point, but if you can logically extrapolate on this idea you will achieve enlightenment.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's different about corporations?
Why are other groups "people" but corporations are not?

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

So local law enforcement could break into a church meeting and arrest the preacher who said something the mayor doesn't like, and they have no appeal to the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free assembly?

Or the cops could break up a PTA meeting, or any gathering the Chief of Police disagrees with, to suppress it, and that group has no appeal to the First Amendment?

WTF are you babbling about? Girl Scouts are people.

people? The Girl Scouts is a corporation, which your cult preaches is "not people!"

Not only is it a corporation, but it practices profit-making, even though it's "non-profit" -- and it does everything the for-profit corporations do. They promote their products just like a for-profit company does, using many of the same advertising gimmicks and deceptions. You could easily argue that they are selfish money-grubbers who EXPLOIT children in order to increase their company profits, just like the dirty greedy capitalist pigs do.

Does someone get "rich" off these profits? "Rich" is a relative term. Those who run this profit-making "non-profit" company make plenty of "profits" even if that's not the legal terminology. They're definitely in the top 10% of income-earners, probably top 5%, and that's very "rich" compared to the vast majority of us. The vast majority of even for-profit corporations (or rather, their executives) make LESS PROFIT than the Girl Scouts executives. So don't say they're different because they're not as profitable.


What's a "non-profit" corporation?
It's just one more way to make lots of money! money! money!
and make yourself filthy rich!

They're getting "rich" by using this "non-profit" method, which works best for them. They chose this occupation because it was the most profitable way for them to get "rich" by comparison to others who chose a different way -- every profiteer chooses whatever for him/her is the most profitable way to get rich, and for many of them that most profitable route to getting rich is to run a "non-profit" corporation (maybe even by pushing a product people don't want). So no matter which route they chose, in order to get rich, ALL of them are money-grubbing capitalists seeking the most profitable way to increase their personal wealth.

So the Girl Scouts is a corporation and makes profits (even if it's technically called some other term). So you can't say the Girls Scouts is in a different category.


So, how are "corporations" different than other groups?

Can't you tell us why "corporations are not people" without contradicting yourself over and over? Make up your mind: If they are "not people" as you keep chanting, then you must acknowledge that the Girls Scouts is NOT PEOPLE, according to your slogan.

I know -- you want to say that the individual members are "people" and maybe not the group, the Girl Scouts corporation. OK then say it -- say these words to prove that you're not just babbling a meaningless slogan:

The Girl Scouts is not people! ------ (IS not, singular)
Don't show your phoniness by saying the Girls Scouts ARE people -- no, use the singular --
Say "The Girl Scouts is not people." If you can say that, then you show that your slogan is not a phony lie you like to tell to express your hate.

Say it. And say: The Girl Scouts has no 1st Amendment rights.

Say those words, to prove you're not a phony. And say it about the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, and about hundreds of other groups/corporations which the Supreme Court says do have 1st Amendment rights, such as free speech and free press and right to assemble, etc. Because they are included under the term "persons" and "people" in the Constitution. So, does each of these groups have those rights or not?

The Supreme Court has always upheld the rights of these groups under the 1st Amendment. Including "for-profit" businesses also. And there was never any Court ruling that they are "not people" and have no such rights.

It was not until the 2002 election reform law that these rights were denied for the first time, and "corporations" and "labor unions" lost their 1st Amendment rights to publish "electioneering communications" -- and in 2008 this was enforced against one company, Citizens United, when the FEC enforced that new censorship law and suppressed that film during the election.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

They're made up of people. They are not people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

more and more of the same phoniness, the same dishonesty:

They're made up of people. They are not people.

No, stop it! cut out the phoniness! We're talking about an IT-- Singular. The Girl Scouts Corporation.

So to prove you're not a phony, say the following. Post it here --

The Girl Scouts is not people.


or


The ACLU is not people.

or

Planned Parenthood is not people. Can't you understand?


These cherished organizations are also "not people" if corporations are not people.

You're a phony, if you claim "corporations are not people" but won't say those words. Do you have trouble understanding English? -- these are corporations, and you're saying "corporations are not people" -- can't you figure it out that you're talking about the ACLU when you say "corporations"? -- it is a corporation. Do I have to spell it out for you?

So far everyone here agreeing that "corporations are not people" is a phony -- they refuse to recognize that they're calling every corporation "not people" and even every group, because any group is different than the individual members. Meaning every church and every community group or club etc. is also "not people" ---

So, why can't you be honest and consistent and acknowledge that the Girl Scouts and the ACLU etc. are also not people? and that therefore they also are not entitled to 1st Amendment protections of free speech, etc.? It's incredible that you can't understand this, or respond to this. When you give these answers, you seem to have a mental block, preventing you from being aware that corporations like these even exist.

Do you realize that the ACLU exists? that Planned Parenthood exists? Don't you understand that there are thousands and thousands of these entities which are called "corporations"? You didn't know they exist? You never heard of the ACLU?