# Corporations declared to be people? Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517 "2012-06-18T14:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/61 "2012-06-21T14:33:02Z")
> [@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. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/62 "2012-06-21T14:34:15Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Yes, that’s the point I’m trying to put to **MikeBB** So you’re admitting that non-humans can have rights? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/63 "2012-06-21T15:49:06Z")
> [@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. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/64 "2012-06-21T15:57:50Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/65 "2012-06-21T20:14:44Z")
> [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/66 "2012-06-21T21:42:04Z")
> [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). 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? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/67 "2012-06-21T22:25:39Z")
> [@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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190736&postcount=57). I’m not going to repeat it. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/68 "2012-06-22T01:03:04Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > My argument has not been affected at all by you repeatedly misstating it. I summarized it just now in [post #57](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190736&postcount=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? ---
**Author:** ![MikeBB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MikeBB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeBB)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/69 "2012-06-22T05:36:54Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/70 "2012-06-22T08:58:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You said in post 57: > > > [@Mijin](#): > > > > it is not entailed that corporations must have freedom of speech, because corporations are not humans. > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/71 "2012-06-22T09:13:21Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/72 "2012-06-22T10:20:14Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > ACTS that happen to involve speech Such as the disbursement of money for electioneering communications? > [@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](http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html). > [@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](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/) (as you argue spending money on speech is the same as speech) to [bribery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act). As it happens, direct corporate contributions ought to help [Democrats](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php). > [@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. > [@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. > [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings) 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast). 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. > [@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. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/73 "2012-06-22T13:12:04Z")
> [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings) 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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/74 "2012-06-23T09:06:19Z")
> [@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). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > See Buckley v. Valeo. There was precedent for the opposite interpretation too: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/75 "2012-06-23T13:58:17Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/76 "2012-06-24T22:02:33Z")
> [@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. ---
**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:** [June 24, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/77 "2012-06-24T23:10:52Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/78 "2012-06-25T14:54:57Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > an entire class Not a legally protected class. ---
**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:** [June 25, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/79 "2012-06-25T14:57:49Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/80 "2012-06-27T01:54:33Z")
> [@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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=5)