# Apple, Speech, Corporations, People **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2016, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282 "2016-02-27T12:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/21 "2016-03-01T02:22:12Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > According to [polls](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/citizens-united-poll-bloomberg/), this isn’t a left/right thing. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Citizen’s United. There’s slightly more distaste on the left, but it’s 83% opposed compared to 80%. Yeah, but that’s part of the baffling part. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that people don’t understand this complex issue, but I wish leaders would stand up and explain it instead of pandering. I know, fat chance. But they only make things worse because they have no intention of actually doing what they say. They just go create their own Super PACs. I remember seeing one of the fucking assholes from Ben and Jerry’s (Ben, I think) with his “get money out of politics” bullshit. I looked him up - not only had he made a few donations, he helped found a Super PAC. But it’s a “good” Super PAC so its okay. Rant over. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/22 "2016-03-01T17:01:27Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Why? In any arms race it benefits both sides to stop, the only problem is that you can’t stop if the other side won’t. But cap both sides and all the sudden both can get the same effect for a lot less money. Because their money is their path to influence and power. If you put a real cap on spending, then having lots of money doesn’t easily translate into more influence and power. The ultra-rich would be fools to want such a situation. Right now, they have to spend to compete against other moneyed interests. But without being able to do so, they’d lose their relevance. No one would know or care what the Koch brothers think if they couldn’t spend their money to promote their views. > [@](#): > > Trees would love if they could conserve resources and stay short. If a Bonsai Maple and a Sequoia were putting restrictions on the canopy, which one do you think is going to be more in favor of a 10 foot height limit? ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/23 "2016-03-03T20:34:11Z")
One needs to understand that the software to break iPhone encryption DOESN’T EXIST. Apple would have to create it from scratch (not an easy thing!). Multiple developers - possibly a whole division - would have to be ‘assigned’ to create this software. Putting your creative efforts into designing and developing a product might be classified as speech of some sort. And who’s going to pay for this? As far a i know, regulations (like requiring a backdoor/gov’t access) aren’t usually retroactive. They could pass a law that all future iPhones need to have this feature for FCC regs/blah blah, but compelling them to literally crack their old products doesn’t seem legit. Speaking of… can a company be guilty of violating the DMCA for hacking their own devices? Tho after they sell them to us, are they technically ‘owned’ by us? Some stuff that you wouldn’t expect is technically leased, and not fully yours… ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/24 "2016-03-03T21:08:57Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > [Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work | WIRED](http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-may-use-first-amendment-defense-fbi-case-just-might-work/) > > That’s funny - I keep hearing people telling me that corporations have no First Amendment rights. In fact, since corporations have no constitutional rights because they are not people, they shouldn’t even have the right to due process or to hire an attorney to fight the FBI in the first place. Right? You have apparently been told this by people who are misinformed. Corporations have rights just like people do. The rights are slightly different since they aren’t “people”, they are “legal persons”. > [@smiling bandit](#): > > As usual, nobody cares what I think, but I’ve long supported the Citizens United decision for several reasons. One of those reasons, however, is important: individuals exercise speech. Corporations do not, in fact, do so. All speech is inherently an act by a human being. Whether it reflects some deep personal belief or a desire for money is not actually relevant. > > Why does this matter in this case? Because you can’t separate the speech of Tim Cook the Apple CEO from Tim Cook the private citizen, to turn a phrase. He’s one guy, with his own views, as are everybody involved. Corporations, so to speak, are legal fictions, but they are legal fictions composed of human beings who _do_ have rights, and those rights matter a great deal. Among them is the right to speech. Another is the right to resist coercion and make their arguments, whether before the law or before public opinion. It’s a bit more complex than that. The whole point of a corporation is to separate the legal liability of the company from the individual human beings who own and work for the company. > [@akrako1](#): > > One needs to understand that the software to break iPhone encryption DOESN’T EXIST. Apple would have to create it from scratch (not an easy thing!). Multiple developers - possibly a whole division - would have to be ‘assigned’ to create this software. Putting your creative efforts into designing and developing a product might be classified as speech of some sort. And who’s going to pay for this? I think this might be covered under the 13th Amendment. > [@iamthewalrus(:3=](#): > > If a Bonsai Maple and a Sequoia were putting restrictions on the canopy, which one do you think is going to be more in favor of a 10 foot height limit? Maybe they will pass a noble law, keeping them equal by hatchet, axe and saw? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/25 "2016-03-03T22:52:57Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So Apple is using a First Amendment argument in its legal fight against the FBI to avoid unlocking those terrorists’ phones. > > [Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work | WIRED](http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-may-use-first-amendment-defense-fbi-case-just-might-work/) > > That’s funny - I keep hearing people telling me that corporations have no First Amendment rights. In fact, since corporations have no constitutional rights because they are not people, they shouldn’t even have the right to due process or to hire an attorney to fight the FBI in the first place. Right? > > The amusing thing for me is that many of the people who moan about corporations not having First Amendment rights, or any rights, are likely among those who support Apple in this case for sticking up for privacy. You know what’s even more amusing? That someone purposefully misunderstands the argument in order to make an invalid point. Unless you actually believe it, in which case that’s much much worse ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/26 "2016-03-04T16:36:44Z")
> [@akrako1](#): > > One needs to understand that the software to break iPhone encryption DOESN’T EXIST. Apple would have to create it from scratch (not an easy thing!). Multiple developers - possibly a whole division - would have to be ‘assigned’ to create this software. Putting your creative efforts into designing and developing a product might be classified as speech of some sort. And who’s going to pay for this? The FBI is going to pay for it. It was never an issue of Apple having to do this without compensation. The issue is whether they have to do it at all. > [@](#): > > As far a i know, regulations (like requiring a backdoor/gov’t access) aren’t usually retroactive. They could pass a law that all future iPhones need to have this feature for FCC regs/blah blah, but compelling them to literally crack their old products doesn’t seem legit. The FBI is requesting this under a law that’s been around for hundreds of years. The open question is whether the law requires Apple to do this or does not. > [@](#): > > Speaking of… can a company be guilty of violating the DMCA for hacking their own devices? Tho after they sell them to us, are they technically ‘owned’ by us? Some stuff that you wouldn’t expect is technically leased, and not fully yours… In general, I doubt it. But it’s probably irrelevant in this case, since the owner of the iPhone in question is a government agency that has consented to the change. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/27 "2016-03-04T17:58:23Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You’ve never heard someone say “corporations aren’t people” when someone asserts the rights of corporations as in Citizens United? I haven’t. Or at least I’ve never heard anyone say that corporations cannot speak. I have head them say that money is not speech. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/28 "2016-03-11T17:14:23Z")
The [DOJ responds](http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11194190/apple-fbi-san-bernardino-encryption-filing) to Apple’s motion. They claim that the courts have not interpreted code as speech (and also that every other argument Apple makes is invalid). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/29 "2016-03-16T14:08:49Z")
I don’t understand what you guys think is the problem. Yeah, the individuals have free speech. So why does the company need it? If the individuals have it, then there’s no need to also grant it to the corporation. In other words, it’s an argument against the necessity of applying these individual rights to corporations. Hence, a counter argument to people saying that corporations need freedom of religion or other such stuff. And that’s what people are referring to when they say that corporations are not people. They don’t mean that they can’t enter into contracts. They mean they shouldn’t have individual rights. An example I’ve brought out before: how can they have freedom of religion if they can’t compel the people working for them to practice said religion? The individuals have freedom of religion, but I don’t see how the corporation can. None of this has any relevance to the Apple case. The FBI is compelling Apple, and by extension, the people involved in Apple, to do things. And that is where Freedom of Speech becomes an issue. The FBI is currently trying to do an end-run around the law (both legislative and judicial) by using an old statute that, if interpreted literally, gives them pretty much unlimited power to do what they want. But, if you go by other court decisions, there’s precedent in the fact that an individual cannot be made to give up their own password. And it’s all a moot point, anyways. No one is going to trust encrypted data to a tiny PIN. They’re going to use real encryption. And, if the FBI can’t crack the encryption on the phone without using Apple’s PIN system, what chance do they have to crack the encryption when there is no PIN system? It’s kinda like what gun advocates say. The laws will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/30 "2016-03-16T19:58:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t understand what you guys think is the problem. Yeah, the individuals have free speech. So why does the company need it? If the individuals have it, then there’s no need to also grant it to the corporation. Companies are just groups of people. Do you think if me and my friends get together to fund a movie, the government should be able to ban that movie for no other reason than we are more than one person? Because that’s what Citizens United was. A group of people who wanted to air a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. And the law banned it. Thankfully, that free-speech-infringing law was ruled unconstitutional. Political speech is important, and worth protecting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/31 "2016-03-16T21:09:49Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t understand what you guys think is the problem. The list of apparent fundamental misunderstandings in your post is impressive. Let’s go through them: > [@](#): > > Yeah, the individuals have free speech. So why does the company need it? If the individuals have it, then there’s no need to also grant it to the corporation. You demonstrate misunderstanding of the reason for, and function of, the corporate form. Why do you think the New York Times is incorporated? Forget the free speech issues. Do you understand that there are other reasons for The New York Times to organize itself as a corporation? Since they have organized themselves as a corporation, do you understand that is the corporate form that exercises the business of the company – which includes printing stuff? If the New York Times prints a story that accuses you of being guilty of mopery and dopery, and you sue them, do you understand you are suing the corporation? Do you understand why individual authors would be reluctant to expose themselves to individual liability? If the corporation has no First Amendment right, then either the individual authors are exposed to liability or the corporate form has no constitutional protection. > [@](#): > > In other words, it’s an argument against the necessity of applying these individual rights to corporations. Hence, a counter argument to people saying that corporations need freedom of religion or other such stuff. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York is also a corporation, for the same reasons. If you get food poisoning from a Lenten fish fry dinner, do you want do you sue the individual careless volunteer food preparer or the diocese? And are you arguing that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese does NOT exercise religion? Or does it do so only through an individual? Who is that individual, exactly? > [@](#): > > An example I’ve brought out before: how can they have freedom of religion if they can’t compel the people working for them to practice said religion? The individuals have freedom of religion, but I don’t see how the corporation can. Because you don’t seem to grok the purpose for the existence of the corporate form. The corporation is a legal structure that allows people to associate their efforts together towards a set of common goals, while limiting the liability exposure of each to the extent he has invested. I am a practicing Catholic. Can I hire you to paint a sign in front of my house urging passers-by to accept the authority of Pope Francis? Sure I can. I am exercising my religion (and my First Amendment free speech rights, too!) Can I do this even if you are an ardent sedevacantist? Sure. I can hire you to exercise my religion, even though I can’t compel you to practice my religion. Do you understand that? Now, how does that change if instead of me hiring you, it’s the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York hiring you? > [@](#): > > And it’s all a moot point, anyways. No one is going to trust encrypted data to a tiny PIN. They’re going to use real encryption. And, if the FBI can’t crack the encryption on the phone without using Apple’s PIN system, what chance do they have to crack the encryption when there is no PIN system? There is nothing unreal about the encryption on the phone. The PIN is used along with the unique phone UID to create a 256-bit key. The data stored on the phone is not merely protected by a PIN, but by the unique combination of the PIN and the UID. This is why they cannot simply reload the phone data on a different phone and start trying PINs. The encryption is complex, so much so that brute force attacks in that way would take longer than anyone involved could live. What I find irritating about your posts is the combination of wrongness and misunderstanding together with the confident tone. You’re so certain, and so wrong. It’s maddening. ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/32 "2016-03-18T17:32:17Z")
an interesting read: [The Law is Clear: The FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite its OS](https://backchannel.com/the-law-is-clear-the-fbi-cannot-make-apple-rewrite-its-os-9ae60c3bbc7b#.ajmyw6q5l) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/33 "2016-03-19T00:43:49Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > You have apparently been told this by people who are misinformed. Corporations have rights just like people do. The rights are slightly different since they aren’t “people”, they are “legal persons”. I know. That’s my point - they are misinformed. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/34 "2016-03-19T00:44:54Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > You know what’s even more amusing? That someone purposefully misunderstands the argument in order to make an invalid point. Unless you actually believe it, in which case that’s much much worse I understand the argument just fine. If you want to take a shot at “explaining” it better, go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/35 "2016-03-19T00:47:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I haven’t. Or at least I’ve never heard anyone say that corporations cannot speak. I have head them say that money is not speech. They say it all the time! It’s a constant drumbeat. They think it was the central holding of the Citizens United decision, that corporations are people and therefore have all the rights of people. They put it in their little amendment: > [@](#): > > Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights] > > The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. > **[Move to Amend's Proposed Amendment to the Constitution](https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment)** ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282/36 "2016-03-19T00:50:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And that’s what people are referring to when they say that corporations are not people. They don’t mean that they can’t enter into contracts. They mean they shouldn’t have individual rights. WTF is an individual right? How do you know which rights are “individual” and which are not? > [@](#): > > An example I’ve brought out before: how can they have freedom of religion if they can’t compel the people working for them to practice said religion? The individuals have freedom of religion, but I don’t see how the corporation can. PEOPLE can’t compel other people working for them to practice a certain religion either though! The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone that right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-speech-corporations-people/747282.md?page=1)