Free Speech

[Bomb#20]

Corporations don't talk.

Ads are taken out and/or sponsored under corporate aegis.

I.e., shareholders hire directors to hire a CEO to hire employees to hire publishers to write or broadcast messages. Biological humans all. To hear the censorship fans talk, you'd think corporations were autonomous robots.

Suppose you got your wish and the Supreme Court ruled that the government can censor what it chooses to define as "corporate speech". How do you imagine that would be enforced? How do you think it is possible for the government to punish a corporation for uttering "corporate speech" other than by punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered?

I could imagine fines or the lose of some (if not all) of the corporate advantage

I.e., some of the shareholders' property is confiscated from them, or else a minority of shareholders are stripped of the limited liability protection shareholders in other companies are guaranteed because the government didn't like what those particular shareholders paid somebody to say. That plainly qualifies as punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, whereas the political thoughts of individuals most often are not about increasing corporate profits but involve many factors. So far as I know, Milton Friedman was not a business "censorship fan."

 

[laughing dog]

I.e., shareholders hire directors to hire a CEO to hire employees to hire publishers to write or broadcast messages. Biological humans all.

Corporations and unions and any group of people take positions as the group entity with no individual identifications. That is clearly what is meant when people are talking about corporations or unions or any group speaking.

To hear the censorship fans talk, you'd think corporations were autonomous robots.

I don't think that when I hear people debate the notion whether spending money on speech is speech or not.

I.e., some of the shareholders' property is confiscated from them, or else a minority of shareholders are stripped of the limited liability protection shareholders in other companies are guaranteed because the government didn't like what those particular shareholders paid somebody to say. That plainly qualifies as punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered.

That is, at best, an indirect punishment on specific living H. sapiens.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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?

You're just now noticing this?

 

[Jarhyn]

I.e., shareholders hire directors to hire a CEO to hire employees to hire publishers to write or broadcast messages. Biological humans all. To hear the censorship fans talk, you'd think corporations were autonomous robots.

Suppose you got your wish and the Supreme Court ruled that the government can censor what it chooses to define as "corporate speech". How do you imagine that would be enforced? How do you think it is possible for the government to punish a corporation for uttering "corporate speech" other than by punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered?

I could imagine fines or the lose of some (if not all) of the corporate advantage

I.e., some of the shareholders' property is confiscated from them, or else a minority of shareholders are stripped of the limited liability protection shareholders in other companies are guaranteed because the government didn't like what those particular shareholders paid somebody to say. That plainly qualifies as punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered.

Your first problem of logic comes where you gloss past "Hired" in your language.

Here, someone is paying money to have someone else represent a view. Money is not speech, it is commissioned action, and hiring implies that not making said speech makes it not strictly "optional" to the hired speaker. In the real world, there are consequences to turning down action commissioned by your employer; asymmetrical power structures are involved.

So the question really is "should we be in the business of treating PAID communications the same as we treat original and voluntary communications?"

I posit that while we should let any individual say anything as an individual representing their own individual views. Is it acceptable to allow one person to speak with the voices and authority of their employees? Because that is what is happening when a company commissions a message as a company. And that steals the agency of all who disagree with that message within the company to not say the thing.

It literally gives some people a greater voice than others, and robs people of their agency to speak their own message, in a world where all voices should be viewed not by how loud they speak but on the content of the message, where the real source of the message is anonymous and hidden from consequences.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Money is not speech, ...

Yes, it is. If Donald Trump pays a citizen to vote for him for $100, then all he has done is spoken to him using free speech. If the citizen doesn't like the speech, he can give the money back. Since money is speech, this is a first amendment right, just like how for-profit corporations can speak to politicians through lobbyists, lobster dinners, trips to aspen, hired prostitutes, and power point presentations. They're all exactly the same thing because money is speech. Just ask any god-fearing, red-blooded conservative in the thread and they will tell you that Pfizer and The New York Times are exactly the same thing. Why do you hate the First Amendment?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So a company shouldn't be allowed to point out problems with proposed legislation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can imagine a much better system.

Easy enough to do on mushrooms or LSD

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.

Money is the accounting of resources. By taking the money out you are saying to not keep track of whether the available resources are adequate for the job. Ceasing to measure something doesn't make it go away, it just means you're going to be confronted with a surprise when you find out it isn't balanced.

Something approaching this level of stupidity has been tried once--Zimbabwe. Note that they no longer have a currency, the US dollar has taken it's place.

 

[untermensche]

I can imagine a much better system.

Easy enough to do on mushrooms or LSD

To you simple fairness and the elimination of dictators probably appears that way.

But they are very simple ideas and could be achieved.

Humanity has no need of dictators in any form.

Those that claim humans need dictators are traitors to humanity. They are a scourge to humanity.

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.

Money is the accounting of resources.

Money is power.

It is the power to distort. The power to deceive.

It has no place in electing anyone.

Those that want money to rule are no friend of democracy. They are opposed to democracy.

They make the lives of most worst but the lives of dictators very good.

 

[James Madison]

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.

And what is the “better interpretation”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To you simple fairness and the elimination of dictators probably appears that way.

But they are very simple ideas and could be achieved.

Humanity has no need of dictators in any form.

Those that claim humans need dictators are traitors to humanity. They are a scourge to humanity.

Preaching, not addressing the issue.

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.

Money is the accounting of resources.

Money is power.

It is the power to distort. The power to deceive.

It has no place in electing anyone.

Those that want money to rule are no friend of democracy. They are opposed to democracy.

They make the lives of most worst but the lives of dictators very good.

Calling it power doesn't change the fact that it is accounting.

 

[untermensche]

Preaching, not addressing the issue.

When you say the word "preaching" you are just evading.

You evade and evade and evade.

Some of us have morality.

And those of us with morality despise dictatorial structures.

We do not defend them and call the condemnation of them "preaching".

You confuse lessons in human morality with preaching. You are not that observant.

Money is the accounting of resources.

Money is power.

It is the power to distort. The power to deceive.

It has no place in electing anyone.

Those that want money to rule are no friend of democracy. They are opposed to democracy.

They make the lives of most worst but the lives of dictators very good.

Calling it power doesn't change the fact that it is accounting.

In other words: It is power but you don't give a fuck about power in the hands of dictators that control governments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you say the word "preaching" you are just evading.

You evade and evade and evade.

Some of us have morality.

And those of us with morality despise dictatorial structures.

We do not defend them and call the condemnation of them "preaching".

You confuse lessons in human morality with preaching. You are not that observant.

I'm not confusing anything. The problem is you are using arguments about what is moral as if they are arguments for what actually works. Something which is moral but doesn't work isn't a good answer.

Money is power.

It is the power to distort. The power to deceive.

It has no place in electing anyone.

Those that want money to rule are no friend of democracy. They are opposed to democracy.

They make the lives of most worst but the lives of dictators very good.

Calling it power doesn't change the fact that it is accounting.

In other words: It is power but you don't give a fuck about power in the hands of dictators that control governments.

Continuing to say it's power does nothing to refute the fact that it's also a measurement of resources.

You want to eliminate how we account for resources--with some pollyanna fantasy that removing the accounting will remove the limits. Failing to track resource production and use does absolutely nothing to ensure there are enough.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not confusing anything.

You're blindly defending immorality. Blindly defending dictatorship.

You are either immoral or ignorant.

The problem is you are using arguments about what is moral as if they are arguments for what actually works.

This is a half-formed idea.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Something which is moral but doesn't work isn't a good answer.

Bullshit!!!

Doing away with dictators works.

That is what the Anarchists proved.

That is not an issue.

We could do away with the dictators and things would be much better. We would have a much more vibrant economy.

Massive hoarding is what we get with dictators.

Hoarding and massive tax evasion.

That is what the dictators give us.

Continuing to say it's power does nothing to refute the fact that it's also a measurement of resources.

That is like saying: Continuing to say it's a bomb does not refute the facts that it is made of metal and has wires.

So fucking what?

It is power. Massive power in the hands of dictators.

Humans used to have enough sense to know that is not good.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not familiar with Citizens United, but it isn't always true for corporations. Sometimes it is the directive from one human individual rather than any group of individuals. Sometimes it is done directly against the interest of the humans who enable or direct it, because of a policy of the corporation or corporate interest that clashes with their personal interests.

That’s a rather tenuous basis for free speech rights. Everything you said above is equally possible for groups and organizations which aren’t corporations.

Not if those groups or organizations say what they do by adoption of policies and statements in a democratic basis. There would still be some minority members of those groups whose views wouldn't be heard in the statement, but at least the majority's would. That isn't necessarily true of a top down corporation run by a CEO or board of directors, with obligations to shareholders.

Are you suggesting that it's okay for constitutional rights to go away if they aren't exercised on a democratic basis? Should freedom of religion perhaps apply to Congregationalists but not to Catholics, since Catholics' religious practices are a directive from the Pope?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Are you under the impression that the Supreme Court decides cases by inquiring as to whether Don2 (Don1 Revised) is able to come up with a rationalization convincing to himself for whatever double standard he wishes them to apply?

There is nothing in either the text of the Constitution or in the last 229 years of Supreme Court case law to support the contention that free speech and free press are supposed to be judged by different standards. If the Supreme Court ever decides free speech goes poof when you make a profit, when they subsequently examine a free press case involving a for-profit newspaper, they will have, on the one hand, their own precedent saying free speech goes poof when you make a profit, and on the other hand, a friend-of-the-court brief from Don2 (Don1 Revised) or someone who thinks like him, saying that was free speech so it made sense but this is free press. Do you seriously imagine they will place more weight on the latter consideration than the former?

If there were to be a ban on for-profit corporate political speech, then what positive thing would really be lost?

We do not have a right not to be censored because you find our speech to be something positive. We have a right not to be censored because governments can't be trusted not to abuse the power to censor.

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

The people who made Hillary: The Movie were individuals. The fact that they organized their movie-making efforts in a way that utilized a corporation does not magically make them not individuals. You might as well claim it's okay to censor a Rotary Club performance of The Merchant of Venice because free speech rights cannot belong to Robert's Rules of Order.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Citizens United is a non-profit corporation. The New York Times Company is a for-profit corporation. That makes it more of a commercial entity, by definition. If Congress gets to censor Citizens United because it's a commercial entity, then it gets to censor the New York Times. Is that really what you want?

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 Citizens United decision had nothing to do with corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a procedural convenience invented by judges so that when the employees of a corporation injure you you can sue the corporation instead of having to track down and individually sue thousands of shareholders. Whether a corporation is a "legal person" has no bearing on whether you're violating one of its employees' rights when you censor him. You might as well say the government can throw a guy in jail for running off a hundred copies of "Dump Trump" on his printer without needing to pass a law limiting political speech -- all it needs to do is tighten the definition of "the press" to limit it to printing presses and exclude laser printers, which should be done anyway.

 

[Bomb#20]

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 is framing it as an assault on the constitution because he believes it is an assault on the constitution. You have no intellectually or morally defensible grounds for accusing him of dishonesty. You are making that charge for exactly the same reason so many Christians claim atheists all really know there's a God and we're just being dicks about admitting it: because you are too damn intellectually lazy to try to see an issue from the other guy's point of view. You are making a false damaging accusation against him with reckless disregard for the truth. That is libelous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

So is it your theory that corporations aren't owned by shareholders? Or is it your theory that the shareholders are space aliens?

 

[Bomb#20]

Everyone here thinks Citizen's United was a bad decision.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:19-21​