Corporations declared to be people? Huh?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I am saying that being human is irrelevant to speech rights.

I don't think you have a consistent point, I think you're just trying to counter whatever I say.
I've given the hypothetical of a computer that generates political speech (and I've left it open whether it has genuine AI or not).
You've jumped from saying the source doesn't matter (so the computer can generate constitutionally protected speech), to saying a computer is just a conduit for human speech and explicitly saying they aren't in themselves protected by FoS, to going on about the government not being able to shut down a computer that belongs to me (which is beside the point) to now saying being human is irrelevant to rights -- which confuses me even more about where you're at.

Then MikeBB needs to weigh in and tell you if he really believes that because corporations have the right to speech that it means he thinks they can get married.

Don't be obtuse. Clearly I'm accusing MikeBB of no such thing; it was an example to illustrate a point.

[MikeBB]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Exactly. All the laws and rights that apply to people carry over to corporations because they are simply collections of people.

So if Bob or Fred can get married, own a passport or run for president, so their corporation should be able to.

Mijin, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, unless you're just trying to be contrary. Your counterexamples apply only to individuals, not groups of people. Duh.

Cecil seems to think that the idea of corporate personhood is some bizarre and unfathomable invention of a rogue court. My main point was that corporate personhood is a centuries-old bedrock principle of commercial and business law.

I assume that your enthusiasm about this topic comes from the recent USSupCt campaign-finance decision. If that's your real complaint, then state it directly.

My view is that if an individual has a right to buy speech, then a group of people should also have the right to pool their money and buy speech. And there's no reason to punish that group for organizing as a corporation rather than in some other form.

If you disagree, then please clarify whether you're objecting to group speech, or corporations per se. Please avoid sarcasm, because I honestly have no idea what proposition you're trying to argue for.

Example: Suppose that Bob spends $2000 of his own money to rent a billboard supporting the re-election of the local mayor. Now suppose that Jane and Sally want to oppose the mayor's re-election, but they only have $1000 each. So they combine their cash and rent a billboard across the street from Bob's.

2.1) Is Bob's rental of a billboard protected first-amendment speech? (I'm assuming yes.)

2.2) Is Jane and Sally's rental of a billboard somehow NOT also protected first-amendment speech, because they pooled their money?

2.3) Suppose that Jane and Sally form a corporation and contribute their $1000 to it. Then the corporation rents the same billboard. Is that billboard rental protected speech? Would it make a difference if they rented the billboard through a trust, or a limited partnership, or a limited liability company?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by MikeBB

Mijin, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, unless you're just trying to be contrary. Your counterexamples apply only to individuals, not groups of people. Duh.

You earlier said "A corporation has free speech, equal protection, and so forth because it's simply a collection of people. If Bob can speak and Fred can speak, then the combination of Bob and Fred should also be able to speak."

But this logic simply doesn't work. It's trivial to find examples of rights that individuals have, but corporations do not. Duh.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

I don't think you have a consistent point, I think you're just trying to counter whatever I say.

Nope. (Get it?)

I've given the hypothetical of a computer that generates political speech (and I've left it open whether it has genuine AI or not).
You've jumped from saying the source doesn't matter (so the computer can generate constitutionally protected speech), to saying a computer is just a conduit for human speech and explicitly saying they aren't in themselves protected by FoS, to going on about the government not being able to shut down a computer that belongs to me (which is beside the point) to now saying being human is irrelevant to rights -- which confuses me even more about where you're at.

They're all the same though. The source, method, conduit, medium, whatever - none of it matters. It's all speech. More clear?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

You earlier said "A corporation has free speech, equal protection, and so forth because it's simply a collection of people. If Bob can speak and Fred can speak, then the combination of Bob and Fred should also be able to speak."

But this logic simply doesn't work. It's trivial to find examples of rights that individuals have, but corporations do not. Duh.

A church also has rights. A church is a collection of people. A church also doesn't have ALL the rights of an individual. But it has some.

[lance strongarm]

This website is not a person, therefore it has no speech rights, therefore the government can shut it down if it wants to.

Make sense?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

They're all the same though. The source, method, conduit, medium, whatever - none of it matters. It's all speech. More clear?

No, "all of the above" doesn't clarify things at all, because the statements I listed are inconsistent.

I'll clarify my position for you, perhaps if you do the same?
My position is:

Freedom of speech is a right that at this time implicitly applies to humans.
...I've illustrated this with the example of an AI generating speech; at this time such speech is either not constitutionally-protected, or it is protected only because it is considered the speech of the human programmer by proxy.
(And if you take umbrage with the "implicit" nature of this rule, note that several things have been taken to be implicit within the wording and are now legally binding; such as that freedom of speech protects political speech and not, say, your right to tell state secrets).

Given this, it is not entailed that corporations must have freedom of speech, because corporations are not humans.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

A church also has rights. A church is a collection of people. A church also doesn't have ALL the rights of an individual. But it has some.

Yes, that's the point I'm trying to put to MikeBB

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This website is not a person, therefore it has no speech rights, therefore the government can shut it down if it wants to.

Make sense?

Once again: in this case, the speech is protected because it is the speech of a human being.

The interesting case that I'm trying to put to you, is if we had an AI that generated unique statements.
I think what you're saying in this latter case is that the speech would be considered the speech of the programmer, and so would be protected for that reason. But you're being quite evasive and inconsistent over this point.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

No, "all of the above" doesn't clarify things at all, because the statements I listed are inconsistent.

I'll clarify my position for you, perhaps if you do the same?
My position is:

Freedom of speech is a right that at this time implicitly applies to humans.
...I've illustrated this with the example of an AI generating speech; at this time such speech is either not constitutionally-protected, or it is protected only because it is considered the speech of the human programmer by proxy.

You've haven't shown any evidence that it's not protected. I say it is protected as speech because all speech is proxy for human speech, even AI speech, and that this is implicit in the First Amendment - which protects speech, period. If that means that I have to reject your notion that speech rights don't apply only to humans, so be it. I reject it.

(And if you take umbrage with the "implicit" nature of this rule, note that several things have been taken to be implicit within the wording and are now legally binding; such as that freedom of speech protects political speech and not, say, your right to tell state secrets).

Revealing (former) state secrets isn't illegal. That's a right too! If I work for the CIA and reveal a secret I know from working there, that's illegal, but it's not really a speech issue. But if you or I or a newspaper repeat what the CIA agent says, the government can't throw us in jail.

Given this, it is not entailed that corporations must have freedom of speech, because corporations are not humans.

But then that would mean that churches, political parties, groups formed to overturn the Citizens United decision, labor unions, charities, and the like also have no speech rights, because they are not human either. Are you really saying that political parties have no right to political speech?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Once again: in this case, the speech is protected because it is the speech of a human being.

As is corporate speech.

Corporations are fictional entities on paper. They can't speak. If you hear speech, it came from a human.

The interesting case that I'm trying to put to you, is if we had an AI that generated unique statements.
I think what you're saying in this latter case is that the speech would be considered the speech of the programmer, and so would be protected for that reason. But you're being quite evasive and inconsistent over this point.

It was an interesting thought experiment that got off track.

Speech cannot be regulated. The status of the speaker, or source, is irrelevant to that.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Yes, that's the point I'm trying to put to MikeBB

So you're admitting that non-humans can have rights?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You've haven't shown any evidence that it's not protected. I say it is protected as speech because all speech is proxy for human speech, even AI speech, and that this is implicit in the First Amendment - which protects speech, period. If that means that I have to reject your notion that speech rights don't apply only to humans, so be it. I reject it.

So..you're rejecting the proposition that free speech applies only to human-generated speech. But you're saying that AI speech is only protected because it is considered a proxy for human speech...

Do you not see why this is incoherent?

Revealing (former) state secrets isn't illegal. That's a right too!

Yeah, nice addition of that bracketed word.
Former state secrets aren't state secrets. I was talking about state secrets.

But then that would mean that churches, political parties, groups formed to overturn the Citizens United decision, labor unions, charities, and the like also have no speech rights, because they are not human either. Are you really saying that political parties have no right to political speech?

All I've said is that I don't believe that organizations' rights are entailed by individual's rights. I haven't said that organizations do not or should not have freedom of speech.

It was an interesting thought experiment that got off track.
The status of the speaker, or source, is irrelevant to that.

Yet you just said AI speech is only protected because it is taken to be a proxy for a human's speech.

So you're admitting that non-humans can have rights?

That wasn't the part of what you said that I was agreeing with. I was agreeing that organizations do not inherit the rights of their members.

But now you ask, sure, non-humans can have rights.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

So..you're rejecting the proposition that free speech applies only to human-generated speech. But you're saying that AI speech is only protected because it is considered a proxy for human speech...

Do you not see why this is incoherent?

No, I'm saying that you may need to think of it as "proxy." I'm saying it doesn't matter.

Speech is free, the source doesn't matter.

Yeah, nice addition of that bracketed word.
Former state secrets aren't state secrets. I was talking about state secrets.

But even if they are still secrets, it's not a crime. For instance, it's a crime for a CIA agent to pass a secret to a news paper - but NOT a crime for the paper to publish it.

The crime in that case is not really a speech issue, even though it involves conveying information.

All I've said is that I don't believe that organizations' rights are entailed by individual's rights. I haven't said that organizations do not or should not have freedom of speech.

Yes, I believe you've said exactly that.

So can non-human entities have speech rights? Yes or no?

Yet you just said AI speech is only protected because it is taken to be a proxy for a human's speech.

No, I'm saying that it was a proxy, but that's not the reason.

That wasn't the part of what you said that I was agreeing with. I was agreeing that organizations do not inherit the rights of their members.

Can non-human entities have speech rights? Yes or no?

But now you ask, sure, non-humans can have rights.

Glad to hear that.

So let's not hear any more about corporations not having rights simply because they aren't human.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

No, I'm saying that you may need to think of it as "proxy." I'm saying it doesn't matter.

Yet you've also said several times it's free because a human created it.

Life's too short for me to get you to take one position or the other, so fine: I accept that you don't believe that source matters and that the speech is free because the source is a human.

But even if they are still secrets, it's not a crime. For instance, it's a crime for a CIA agent to pass a secret to a news paper - but NOT a crime for the paper to publish it.

This is factually wrong however. I think you may be confused because once a CIA agent has revealed a secret to the world, it is no longer a secret, so the papers can do what they want with it (though even there it has been contested in court several times).

Genuine secrets however are explicitly not protected speech as described in the Espionage Act.

Yes, I believe you've said exactly that.

Fine, you can quote where I said such a thing then.

So can non-human entities have speech rights? Yes or no?

Yep.

So let's not hear any more about corporations not having rights simply because they aren't human.

That isn't my point at all. My point on that matter was simply that organizations do not necessarily inherit all the rights of their members. I've said this very clearly several times yet you keep misstating my position.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Yet you've also said several times it's free because a human created it.

Just pointing out that a human did. You can think of it however you choose.

This is factually wrong however. I think you may be confused because once a CIA agent has revealed a secret to the world, it is no longer a secret, so the papers can do what they want with it (though even there it has been contested in court several times).

Fine. Same difference.

Genuine secrets however are explicitly not protected speech as described in the Espionage Act.

Sigh.

We know that there are some narrow, logical exception to free speech - mostly because they involve ACTS that happen to involve speech. Nobody disputes this fact or the exceptions. The fact that they exist, however, don't justify any and all exceptions. I could drive a truck through your exception.

Yep.

Good. Glad that's over. What's left of your argument?

That isn't my point at all. My point on that matter was simply that organizations do not necessarily inherit all the rights of their members. I've said this very clearly several times yet you keep misstating my position.

I may have mistaken you with other posters, or misunderstood you. In any event, what's left?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Nobody disputes this fact or the exceptions. The fact that they exist, however, don't justify any and all exceptions. I could drive a truck through your exception.

You disputed it.
And "the existence of an exception justifies all exceptions" is a straw man and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Good. Glad that's over. What's left of your argument?
...
I may have mistaken you with other posters, or misunderstood you. In any event, what's left?

My argument has not been affected at all by you repeatedly misstating it. I summarized it just now in post #57. I'm not going to repeat it.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

My argument has not been affected at all by you repeatedly misstating it. I summarized it just now in post #57. I'm not going to repeat it.

Let's sweep all the other stuff aside and get right to it then, okay?

You said in post 57:

it is not entailed that corporations must have freedom of speech, because corporations are not humans.

So do you now disagree?

[MikeBB]

Originally Posted by Mijin

You earlier said "A corporation has free speech, equal protection, and so forth because it's simply a collection of people. If Bob can speak and Fred can speak, then the combination of Bob and Fred should also be able to speak."

But this logic simply doesn't work. It's trivial to find examples of rights that individuals have, but corporations do not. Duh.

Fine, then I'll amend it to say that a corporation should have any speech rights that a group of people has. Is that really all we're arguing about?

And I'll ask again: Do you believe that groups of people should have lesser speech rights than individuals?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You said in post 57:

So do you now disagree?

Nope. Why would my position have changed?

Do you know what entailed means? Because I might understand why you think there is an inconsistency in my position if you are misinterpreting that word.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by MikeBB

Fine, then I'll amend it to say that a corporation should have any speech rights that a group of people has. Is that really all we're arguing about?

Well this is quite a different thing to your original point.
Whether a corporation inherits all the individual rights of its members and whether it inherits just the collective group rights of its member set has very different implications.

Anyway, if you're asking me about the general case of whether corporations necessarily inherit the collective group rights of its member set, the answer is still "no". I can think of examples of things a group of people are allowed to do that their corporation would not.

If you're simply asking me whether corporations should have free speech, my answer is "yes, with a caveat". My own position is that the current interpretation of the first amendment is flawed, and as it's pretty arbitrary which rights we pass on to corporations, there is leeway there for reconsidering the issue.

And I'll ask again: Do you believe that groups of people should have lesser speech rights than individuals?

You say "ask again", when did you ask the first time?

But my answer to your leading question is that I don't believe that groups should necessarily have less speech rights than individuals, nor do I believe they should necessarily have more speech rights, nor do I believe that they necessarily should have the same rights.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

ACTS that happen to involve speech

Such as the disbursement of money for electioneering communications?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Arguing something is just arguing something. Only if the courts accept the argument does it become reality.

The lawyer really argued for it. It didn't establish precedent, but the argument existed. Not to mention, there is now precedent for a broadcaster's first amendment right to lie.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Clearly they don't have all the same rights as people.

While the wording was hyperbolic, a court decision could have decided corporations could have all the legal rights of people at the time and more recent precedent overrided that. It can certainly happen in reverse, as in the case of Citizens United overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - which was a suit based on the fourteenth amendment. Michigan found "[laws burdening the Chamber's political expression] are justified by a compelling state interest: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political arena by reducing the threat that huge corporate treasuries, which are amassed with the aid of favorable state laws and have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas, will be used to influence unfairly election outcomes."

Basically, regulating Commerce between the states. As it happens, democracy may not be synonymous with liberty. Bribery laws are a restriction on speech (a corporation cannot appoint a Congress member as a spokesperson), but they are in the interests of a functioning democratic state. As it happens, campaign contributions and donations to candidates are functionally equivalent (as you argue spending money on speech is the same as speech) to bribery. As it happens, direct corporate contributions ought to help Democrats.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

But it's the corporation that possesses it, and it's a person! Right?

Mixed metaphor. Individual disbursements on electioneering material are legal.

Originally Posted by MikeBB

The main point of corporation laws was to assure passive investors that they could never lose more than the amount of their investment.

Except those passive investors reap the benefits of holding a share in that corporation without being held to the costs when they arrive.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

In the case of speech, it can't regulate speech.

Except the Supreme Court has already determined that Congress can regulate the time, place and manner of political speech and there are even more stringent restrictions on commercial speech (see tobacco) subject to the Central Hudson test. The right to speech is not the right to an audience. In England, political advertising is banned from television and radio and parties which can then choose time slots. Television is owned and operated for the public interest and they can determine, more or less, what content they desire on the television. A similar system is in place in the US with the FCC, which may fine individuals or groups of individuals for airing their views (even their political views) at the wrong time or in the wrong place.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's obviously just as absurd as saying that it can ban the speech of a corporation.

Which the pertinent part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act wasn't doing. It was outlawing corporate disbursements on electioneering communications.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Such as the disbursement of money for electioneering communications?

No.

The lawyer really argued for it. It didn't establish precedent, but the argument existed.

And my previous comment still stands.

While the wording was hyperbolic, a court decision could have decided corporations could have all the legal rights of people at the time and more recent precedent overrided that.

But it didn't.

Mixed metaphor. Individual disbursements on electioneering material are legal.

I was being sarcastic. Thanks for noticing.

Except those passive investors reap the benefits of holding a share in that corporation without being held to the costs when they arrive.

What's that have to do with speech?

Except the Supreme Court has already determined that Congress can regulate the time, place and manner of political speech and there are even more stringent restrictions on commercial speech (see tobacco) subject to the Central Hudson test.

This is neither a time place and manner issue nor commercial speech.

In England,

This is not England.

Our Bill of Rights was written directly in response to abuses by the government back in England.

Which the pertinent part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act wasn't doing. It was outlawing corporate disbursements on electioneering communications.

See Buckley v. Valeo.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This is neither a time place and manner issue

No? The relevant segment of BCRA specified a time during which electioneering communications were not permitted. The content of the specific speech would be permitted at other times and it passes two prongs of the intermediate scrutiny (content neutral, significant government interest) and arguably passes the others (narrowly tailored and ample channels).

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

See Buckley v. Valeo.

There was precedent for the opposite interpretation too: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

No? The relevant segment of BCRA specified a time during which electioneering communications were not permitted. The content of the specific speech would be permitted at other times and it passes two prongs of the intermediate scrutiny (content neutral, significant government interest) and arguably passes the others (narrowly tailored and ample channels).

It specified a particular SOURCE of speech for censorship. That's not time and manner, it's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.

There was precedent for the opposite interpretation too: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

Go overturn Buckley and get back to me.

If you want me to explain why Buckley was right - and give you examples that will force you to agree - let me know.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's not time and manner, it's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.

Except BCRA didn't censor electioneering communications, it just restricted expenditure on them for a certain time by certain groups. Just as certain groups cannot protest the president at certain times and places.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Except BCRA didn't censor electioneering communications, it just restricted expenditure on them for a certain time by certain groups. Just as certain groups cannot protest the president at certain times and places.

You're still so completely full of it.

To compare an outright ban on any spending on speech by an entire class to a restriction on (all, not just some) people mounting protests for security reasons is just a fucking joke. It would be laughed out of court. I shouldn't have to explain why.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

an entire class

Not a legally protected class.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Not a legally protected class.

This post has no meaning in this debate. You seem to be applying the language of discrimination law. I'm simply using class in the general sense.

All classes are legally protected by the First Amendment, meaning that the government may not create any particular class to remove protection from based simply on whether the government thinks that class's speech is somehow illegitimate or the people can't handle the influence.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This post has no meaning in this debate.

Then why even bring the term up? The whole thread is a litany of exceptions to the first amendment.

[elucidator]

I like this recent line: I'll believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I like this recent line: I'll believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one.

Funny; but have any states actually revoked a corporation's charter, effectively "executing" it?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Nope. Why would my position have changed?

Do you know what entailed means? Because I might understand why you think there is an inconsistency in my position if you are misinterpreting that word.

I think maybe you put a comma in a bad place.

It really doesn't matter. If you believe corporations have speech rights, we're done.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I like this recent line: I'll believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one.

It's not recent. And it has no point.

No court has ever said corporations are people.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Then why even bring the term up?

I was referring to class in the general sense. Words can have more than one meaning, you know. Don't get caught up in technicalities.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I think maybe you put a comma in a bad place.

Where? I like to correct my typos.

It really doesn't matter. If you believe corporations have speech rights, we're done.

We didn't really have a discussion in the first place, so fair enough if we're done.

In terms of whether I believe corporations have speech rights though, there are multiple ways to parse that: whether I think it is the case, whether I think it should be the case, whether we're talking all speech-rights or just some etc.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Where? I like to correct my typos.

I don't know if I misunderstood you, or why. But I just don't have time to go over it.

In terms of whether I believe corporations have speech rights though, there are multiple ways to parse that: whether I think it is the case, whether I think it should be the case, whether we're talking all speech-rights or just some etc.

Do you think it should be the case, and we're talking about speech rights now.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I don't know if I misunderstood you, or why. But I just don't have time to go over it.

Fine, let's draw a line. FTR my position is unchanged, since no-one has presented a reason why it should change.

Do you think it should be the case, and we're talking about speech rights now.

Here's what I said to MikeBB (emphasis in original):

Originally Posted by Mijin

If you're simply asking me whether corporations should have free speech, my answer is "yes, with a caveat". My own position is that the current interpretation of the first amendment is flawed, and as it's pretty arbitrary which rights we pass on to corporations, there is leeway there for reconsidering the issue.

So e.g. if we were to say that corporations couldn't engage in hate speech, I wouldn't see that as unconstitutional (because for one thing, I wouldn't find it unconstitutional for such a rule to apply in general).

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

So e.g. if we were to say that corporations couldn't engage in hate speech, I wouldn't see that as unconstitutional (because for one thing, I wouldn't find it unconstitutional for such a rule to apply in general).

Do you believe that corporations have a right to engage in political speech, such as the kind at issue in Citizens United?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Do you believe that corporations have a right to engage in political speech, such as the kind at issue in Citizens United?

I have to say "no".

I don't actually have a problem with the kind of speech at issue here, but "right" here implies unlimited spending, at any point in the election cycle, etc. I personally have no issue with common-sense restrictions to ensure elections are carried out sensibly, and nor do most Western democracies.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

I have to say "no".

Okay, then. So we're back to square one.

]I don't actually have a problem with the kind of speech at issue here, but "right" here implies unlimited spending, at any point in the election cycle, etc. I personally have no issue with common-sense restrictions to ensure elections are carried out sensibly, and nor do most Western democracies.

The First Amendment says otherwise though.

You can't limit speech. You can't declare that common sense overrules the First Amendment.

[Irishman]

But the Supreme Court has already ruled that common sense trumps the First Amendment. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater willy nilly without facing the consequences. Safety overrules freedom.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Okay, then. So we're back to square one.

Indeed we seem to be because:

You can't limit speech. You can't declare that common sense overrules the First Amendment.

As has been shown there are lots of exceptions to freedom of speech and the brief wording of the constitution requires a lot to be inferred (and the exact interpretation has shifted over time).

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Irishman

But the Supreme Court has already ruled that common sense trumps the First Amendment. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater willy nilly without facing the consequences. Safety overrules freedom.

No, it never says a word about "common sense" in that decision (which has been eclipsed by others, btw).

It says specific things, but not "common sense" which is an incredibly vague and therefore useless term here. It could justify just about anything you want it to.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

As has been shown there are lots of exceptions to freedom of speech and the brief wording of the constitution requires a lot to be inferred (and the exact interpretation has shifted over time).

There are exceptions, but they are specific. You can't just say that because there are exceptions, you can make up any exception you want.

There's no basis for an exception based on the speaker or source of the speech. There have been many times when this reason has been explicitly rejected.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

There are exceptions, but they are specific. You can't just say that because there are exceptions, you can make up any exception you want.

You keep implying that the first amendment gives completely unlimited freedom of speech e.g. "You can't limit speech". No-one interprets it that way in practice.

Whenever this is pointed out to you, you repeat the straw man that we are suggesting that we can add any old exception, whether it makes sense or not and whether it is in the spirit of the constitution or not.

There's no basis for an exception based on the speaker or source of the speech. There have been many times when this reason has been explicitly rejected.

In the case of corporations, I wouldn't even consider that an exception. As has been shown, it doesn't make sense for corporations to inherit all the rights of their individual members, or even the shared rights of its owners.
So it's down to the legislature to decide what "freedom of speech" means in the context of a corporation.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

You keep implying that the first amendment gives completely unlimited freedom of speech e.g. "You can't limit speech". No-one interprets it that way in practice.

You are correct. It's just a simple reminder to people who completely ignore the First Amendment.

Yes, there are a few very specific and very limited, logical exceptions.

Those don't justify any other exceptions though. Each must stand on their own.

Whenever this is pointed out to you, you repeat the straw man that we are suggesting that we can add any old exception, whether it makes sense or not and whether it is in the spirit of the constitution or not.

It's not a strawman. People do it all the time - "you can't say fire in a crowded theatre, therefore I can impose a massive scheme of denying political speech based on my dislike for the source of the speech." It's ridiculous. If you haven't said that, sorry, but let's make sure.

In the case of corporations, I wouldn't even consider that an exception.

Then why bring up exceptions?

As has been shown, it doesn't make sense for corporations to inherit all the rights of their individual members, or even the shared rights of its owners.

They dont' inherit rights. They simply have them.

The First Amendment simply says Congress may not limit speech. Nothing about where the speech comes from.

So it's down to the legislature to decide what "freedom of speech" means in the context of a corporation.

So only people have speech rights? Could the legislature ban speech by other non people such as political parties, churches, unions, and non-profit groups? Could it decide that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to their context either?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's not a strawman. People do it all the time - "you can't say fire in a crowded theatre, therefore I can impose a massive scheme of denying political speech based on my dislike for the source of the speech." It's ridiculous. If you haven't said that, sorry, but let's make sure.

Well I clearly haven't said that. Apology accepted.

Then why bring up exceptions?

Because you keep saying that speech cannot be limited, period. You've even done it again in this post.
It can and is limited in a number of ways, like in any country. Completely unlimited speech is unworkable.

They dont' inherit rights. They simply have them.

Well this is a point under dispute -- I say they simply don't, in the sense that they don't automatically have this or any other right.

The First Amendment simply says Congress may not limit speech. Nothing about where the speech comes from.

The first amendment requires a lot of interpretation, and lots of things fall outside of what is considered the spirit of the first amendment.

But I would see a rule of "No private political adds within X days of the polls opening" in the same sphere as "Stand by your ad". It's a common sense practical rule that doesn't affect the political debate at all and gags absolutely no-one.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

No court has ever said corporations are people.

Except the people making the Citizens United claim did so on 14th amendment and 1st amendment grounds.

As it stands, I think the "fire in a crowded theatre" hypothetical is a bad example. However, I'd have no problem with dictating that broadcasters cannot profit from electioneering communications, or can only accept public money for electioneering communications. The real issue at stake for the broadcaster is funding, which is a commercial and not a political concern.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Except the people making the Citizens United claim did so on 14th amendment and 1st amendment grounds.

The decision did not.

As it stands, I think the "fire in a crowded theatre" hypothetical is a bad example. However, I'd have no problem with dictating that broadcasters cannot profit from electioneering communications, or can only accept public money for electioneering communications. The real issue at stake for the broadcaster is funding, which is a commercial and not a political concern.

Okay, whatever, if that's what you want.