Free Speech

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Press organizations, even if for-profit, are protected under free press. So that is a bit of a red herring. As to the rest...

If there were to be a ban on for-profit corporate political speech, then what positive thing would really be lost? Any individual owner or employee who really actually believes in position X, would be free to associate into a political organization or act as an individual insofar as free speech.

Anyhoo, I still stand by the contents of my second post in this thread:

Free speech rights cannot belong to a for-profit legal entity but instead belong to individuals and the free press. See amendment#1.

...

Sometimes there is a blurry line but there are some things that are true:
1. Individuals have a right to free speech. Free speech isn't quite dollars. The more it becomes dollars the less democratic it is.
2. Free press has rights to print and spread news etc. For-profit non-press organizations are not the same thing. The blurry line: To the extent that news corporations become conduits or are owned by for-profit non-press entities that infect news, something ought to be done.
3. Citizen non-profit organizations ought to be very similar to #1, a collection of individuals. To the extent that there are hidden corporate sponsors and the organization becomes a front for for-profit industry, foreign entities, etc, something ought to be done.

 

[Sarpedon]

As much as I am in favor of limiting corporate political speech, an outright ban would cause us to lose something: A corporation ought to be able to inform the government of its needs, as this has impact on the economy. Just as complete ignorance of the plight of the poor leads to bad governance, so to would complete ignorance of the needs of businesses. Thus we should say "limit" rather than "ban."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As much as I am in favor of limiting corporate political speech, an outright ban would cause us to lose something: A corporation ought to be able to inform the government of its needs, as this has impact on the economy. Just as complete ignorance of the plight of the poor leads to bad governance, so to would complete ignorance of the needs of businesses. Thus we should say "limit" rather than "ban."

And it becomes very difficult to define how to limit political speech without limiting other speech.

 

[steve_bank]

A company has a right to voice concerns on issues relating to its interests. The question is the level of police influence afforded by a lot of money.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Corporations are currently guiding legislation that is relevant to the companies. They have directors, VPs, CEOs, owners, boards, and lobbyists talking to politicians on their behalf. They have politicians seeking them out to talk to them, also on boards etc. And they have mega donations they make to campaigns. Do they also need political free speech to make political advertisements under the guise of being citizen groups? or to misinform the public so the company can get what is in the best financial interest of long-term profit for said company? Think Big Tobacco here and all the shenanigans...or global warming...what is normally fraud in the business world when making claims becomes legally protected in the political domain.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think that is key: Corporations are commercial entities, by definition. They can have free speech relevant to their commercial activities. And they can be regulated according to commerce laws.

See, no need to pass laws limiting political speech. All you need to do is tighten the definition of 'corporate personhood' to limit it to commerce alone, which should be done anyway.

 

[untermensche]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

I’m rather certain the expenditure of corporate funds for speech requires human involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.

You have all the humans working together as a group that make the funds.

And you have this small group of dictators that decide who to give the funds to.

Very democratic.

A great help to democracy.

Letting corporate dictators pick and control politicians is a great system.

But of course I am just talking about how the system actually works.

A great system where you end up with monstrosities like Trump.

I can imagine a much better system.

It's called democracy.

Take the money out completely.

And respect no party more than another.

Have a competition of ideas and all ideas get the same playing field. So lunatics that talk about building unneeded walls can be seen for what they are.

 

[jonatha]

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

But from a collective speech perspective, there’s no difference. Free speech rights do not cease to exist on the basis the speech is from an entity in which people belong. By entity I mean, broadly, a group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization, or something akin to either one. Free speech rights extend to people engaged in speech through and by the entity, just as they do for an individual lawfully standing on sidewalk and holding a placard with wording denouncing Trump.

Some examples of collective speech are, NAACP, ABA (American Bar Assc.), fraternities, sororities, university clubs, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, unions, and like corporations, such as Citizens United, they are comprised of people who speak through and by the entity, the organization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The primary weakness of this argument, particularly when it comes to corporations, is that only a select few of the "group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization" get to decide what the entity or organization is going to say.

It seems to me a Constitutionally sound(ish) but entirely impractical means of restricting corporate "speech" would be to offer the limited liability corporations were invented to supply only to persons who confessed to a crime (created solely for this purpose), at which point a penalty restricting civil liberties could be imposed on them as a group...

 

[James Madison]

Corporations are currently guiding legislation that is relevant to the companies. They have directors, VPs, CEOs, owners, boards, and lobbyists talking to politicians on their behalf. They have politicians seeking them out to talk to them, also on boards etc. And they have mega donations they make to campaigns. Do they also need political free speech to make political advertisements under the guise of being citizen groups? or to misinform the public so the company can get what is in the best financial interest of long-term profit for said company? Think Big Tobacco here and all the shenanigans...or global warming...what is normally fraud in the business world when making claims becomes legally protected in the political domain.

Whether they "need political free speech" is irrelevant. They have a right to speak under the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause and let's be clear, a human being, a flesh and blood, living and breathing human, or human beings, are engaging in the speech through and by the corporate entity. Simply, there is no textual basis in the 1st Amendment to deny those people the ability to speak on the basis they belong to, are members of, and/or are speaking through an entity.

 

[James Madison]

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

But from a collective speech perspective, there’s no difference. Free speech rights do not cease to exist on the basis the speech is from an entity in which people belong. By entity I mean, broadly, a group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization, or something akin to either one. Free speech rights extend to people engaged in speech through and by the entity, just as they do for an individual lawfully standing on sidewalk and holding a placard with wording denouncing Trump.

Some examples of collective speech are, NAACP, ABA (American Bar Assc.), fraternities, sororities, university clubs, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, unions, and like corporations, such as Citizens United, they are comprised of people who speak through and by the entity, the organization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The primary weakness of this argument, particularly when it comes to corporations, is that only a select few of the "group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization" get to decide what the entity or organization is going to say.

It seems to me a Constitutionally sound(ish) but entirely impractical means of restricting corporate "speech" would be to offer the limited liability corporations were invented to supply only to persons who confessed to a crime (created solely for this purpose), at which point a penalty restricting civil liberties could be imposed on them as a group...

The primary weakness of this argument, particularly when it comes to corporations, is that only a select few of the "group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization" get to decide what the entity or organization is going to say.

So what? This does not change the fact "only a select few" are engaging in speech and speaking through and by the corporate entity. Just as, when I was active in Lambda Chi, a "select few" determined the messages and content of the messages made by and on behalf of the fraternity but this surely does not negate the fact free speech is still applicable.

 

[James Madison]

I think that is key: Corporations are commercial entities, by definition. They can have free speech relevant to their commercial activities. And they can be regulated according to commerce laws.

See, no need to pass laws limiting political speech. All you need to do is tighten the definition of 'corporate personhood' to limit it to commerce alone, which should be done anyway.

The 1st Amendment free speech rights are not limited, contracted, extended, or said to exist or not exist, to be applicable or non-applicable, on the basis the corporate entity is limited to "commerce alone."

 

[Sarpedon]

The 1st amendment doesn't mention corporations. Only people. That's the only limitation I require.

The idea that corporations are people is artificial. We can change that to say that corporations are considered to have some of the rights (I would call them 'abilities' to distinguish them from human 'rights') of people with regard to commerce only: the ability to buy, sell and hold property, hire employees, advertise, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, etc.

Since corporations are not people, the first amendment doesn't apply to them. Corporate personhood is the real problem. You try to manufacture outrage by framing an attack on corporate power as an assault on the constitution. This is clearly dishonest.

 

[James Madison]

The 1st amendment doesn't mention corporations. Only people. That's the only limitation I require.

The idea that corporations are people is artificial. We can change that to say that corporations are considered to have some of the rights (I would call them 'abilities' to distinguish them from human 'rights') of people with regard to commerce only: the ability to buy, sell and hold property, hire employees, advertise, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, etc.

Since corporations are not people, the first amendment doesn't apply to them. Corporate personhood is the real problem. You try to manufacture outrage by framing an attack on corporate power as an assault on the constitution. This is clearly dishonest.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t mention “people” at all in relation to the free speech clause. So, your attempt to lecture me on the basis of referencing “people” on this issue is misplaced.

Neither does this dialogue have anything to do with corporations as people. Corporate personhood is not the problem. Free speech rights aren’t based on corporate personhood. The plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t exempt protection of speech on the basis of “corporate personhood.” Nothing in the plain text of the 1st Amendment denied speech rights to a person/persons, engaged in speech, on the basis the speech is through, by, or on behalf of a corporation.

To be sure, 1st Amendment speech rights are for people, not squirrels and dogs, but the plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t distinguish the type of person speaking. The fact is a person, or persons, a living and breathing human being or human beings, are engaged in speech when the corporate entity is speaking, and as a result the 1st Amendment speech clause applies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone else find it interesting how conservatives are originalist when it favors The Man but not originalist when it doesn't favor The Man?

 

[Sarpedon]

You and I can disagree on whether 'the people' can be considered the direct object of the entire sentence. The fact that corporations CAN'T speak without a human intermediary supports my side of the argument, that it has no free speech, not yours. What is happening is that a corporation is hiring someone as an agent, and they are speaking. I am not saying that the person cannot speak or be so hired, but that the corporation be prevented from hiring people to speak on topics unrelated to the corporation's business, just as corporations are prohibited from hiring goons to clear out property it wishes to purchase.

Again, every objection you raise can be restructured to be a constitutional regulation on commerce, if only there were the will to do so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You and I can disagree on whether 'the people' can be considered the direct object of the entire sentence. The fact that corporations CAN'T speak without a human intermediary supports my side of the argument, that it has no free speech, not yours. What is happening is that a corporation is hiring someone as an agent, and they are speaking. I am not saying that the person cannot speak or be so hired, but that the corporation be prevented from hiring people to speak on topics unrelated to the corporation's business, just as corporations are prohibited from hiring goons to clear out property it wishes to purchase.

Again, every objection you raise can be restructured to be a constitutional regulation on commerce, if only there were the will to do so.

Freedom of speech also doesn't seem to mean money or at least as you point out money is a commerce issue as applied to national and international for-profit corporations.

 

[JohnG]

The 1st amendment doesn't mention corporations. Only people. That's the only limitation I require.

The idea that corporations are people is artificial. We can change that to say that corporations are considered to have some of the rights (I would call them 'abilities' to distinguish them from human 'rights') of people with regard to commerce only: the ability to buy, sell and hold property, hire employees, advertise, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, etc.

Since corporations are not people, the first amendment doesn't apply to them. Corporate personhood is the real problem. You try to manufacture outrage by framing an attack on corporate power as an assault on the constitution. This is clearly dishonest.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t mention “people” at all in relation to the free speech clause. So, your attempt to lecture me on the basis of referencing “people” on this issue is misplaced.

Neither does this dialogue have anything to do with corporations as people. Corporate personhood is not the problem. Free speech rights aren’t based on corporate personhood. The plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t exempt protection of speech on the basis of “corporate personhood.” Nothing in the plain text of the 1st Amendment denied speech rights to a person/persons, engaged in speech, on the basis the speech is through, by, or on behalf of a corporation.

To be sure, 1st Amendment speech rights are for people, not squirrels and dogs, but the plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t distinguish the type of person speaking. The fact is a person, or persons, a living and breathing human being or human beings, are engaged in speech when the corporate entity is speaking, and as a result the 1st Amendment speech clause applies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever the wording, when people speak on behalf of corporations, they are not speaking on behalf of people.

 

[James Madison]

The 1st amendment doesn't mention corporations. Only people. That's the only limitation I require.

The idea that corporations are people is artificial. We can change that to say that corporations are considered to have some of the rights (I would call them 'abilities' to distinguish them from human 'rights') of people with regard to commerce only: the ability to buy, sell and hold property, hire employees, advertise, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, etc.

Since corporations are not people, the first amendment doesn't apply to them. Corporate personhood is the real problem. You try to manufacture outrage by framing an attack on corporate power as an assault on the constitution. This is clearly dishonest.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t mention “people” at all in relation to the free speech clause. So, your attempt to lecture me on the basis of referencing “people” on this issue is misplaced.

Neither does this dialogue have anything to do with corporations as people. Corporate personhood is not the problem. Free speech rights aren’t based on corporate personhood. The plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t exempt protection of speech on the basis of “corporate personhood.” Nothing in the plain text of the 1st Amendment denied speech rights to a person/persons, engaged in speech, on the basis the speech is through, by, or on behalf of a corporation.

To be sure, 1st Amendment speech rights are for people, not squirrels and dogs, but the plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause doesn’t distinguish the type of person speaking. The fact is a person, or persons, a living and breathing human being or human beings, are engaged in speech when the corporate entity is speaking, and as a result the 1st Amendment speech clause applies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever the wording, when people speak on behalf of corporations, they are not speaking on behalf of people.

Does not change the fact "people" are speaking, and hence, the 1st Amendment speech clause applies.

 

[James Madison]

You and I can disagree on whether 'the people' can be considered the direct object of the entire sentence. The fact that corporations CAN'T speak without a human intermediary supports my side of the argument, that it has no free speech, not yours. What is happening is that a corporation is hiring someone as an agent, and they are speaking. I am not saying that the person cannot speak or be so hired, but that the corporation be prevented from hiring people to speak on topics unrelated to the corporation's business, just as corporations are prohibited from hiring goons to clear out property it wishes to purchase.

Again, every objection you raise can be restructured to be a constitutional regulation on commerce, if only there were the will to do so.

You and I can disagree on whether 'the people' can be considered the direct object of the entire sentence.

Sure, we can disagree, but the plain text of the 1st Amendment does not support your side of the disagreement. This, however, is not much of a problem since Bill of Rights, including those rights in the 1st Amendment, are for people and not polar bars and kittens.

The fact that corporations CAN'T speak without a human intermediary supports my side of the argument, that it has no free speech, not yours.

To the contrary, this fact helps my argument. The speech clause protects the speech rights of people, human beings, and since a human being is doing the speaking, then the speech clause applies. Just as the speech clause applies to fraternities and for the same reason, despite the fact a "human intermediary" is involved. The speech clause applies to the NAACP, despite the fact a "human intermediary" is involved. The speech clause applies to formal political parties, despite the fact a "human intermediary" is involved. The presence and existence of a "human intermediary" does not negate applicability of free speech rights. To the contrary, it is because of the "human" intermediary that free speech rights do exist and attach.

Again, every objection you raise can be restructured to be a constitutional regulation on commerce, if only there were the will to do so

Not really and the holding of Citizens United v. FEC is contrary to your point above. In addition, the speech clause applies when a human being, a person, or collection of them, are speaking, engaged in speaking, and as a result, they have speech rights, even when speaking in the form of a corporate entity.

 

[Sarpedon]

Everyone here thinks Citizen's United was a bad decision. Sure, it rules, but that doesn't mean its right. I'm talking about how to fix the bad situation we are in, largely because of lousy decisions like Citizen's United. Thanks to Trump and Putin, I probably won't live to see it overturned, but I don't have to pretend it is good. I am imagining the reasoning of a better interpretation that might be incorporated into the new opinion when it is overturned.