# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/81 "2012-06-27T10:07:03Z")
I like this recent line: I’ll believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/82 "2012-06-27T12:24:46Z")
> [@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? ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/83 "2012-06-27T13:16:24Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/84 "2012-06-27T13:17:24Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/85 "2012-06-27T13:19:12Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/86 "2012-06-27T13:44:07Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/87 "2012-06-27T13:48:06Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/88 "2012-06-27T14:11:58Z")
> [@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): > [@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_). ---
**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 27, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/89 "2012-06-27T14:15:59Z")
> [@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? ---
**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 27, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/90 "2012-06-27T18:46:18Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/91 "2012-06-27T19:51:33Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/92 "2012-06-27T20:04:06Z")
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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/93 "2012-06-27T21:28:56Z")
> [@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). ---
**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 27, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/94 "2012-06-27T22:39:42Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 27, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/95 "2012-06-27T22:41:14Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 28, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/96 "2012-06-28T00:03:05Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 28, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/97 "2012-06-28T00:12:14Z")
> [@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? ---
**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 28, 2012, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/98 "2012-06-28T08:50:34Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/99 "2012-06-28T15:59:20Z")
> [@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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM). 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. ---
**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 28, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/100 "2012-06-28T19:28:33Z")
> [@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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM). 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=6)