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?
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.
It’s not recent. And it has no point.
No court has ever said corporations are people.
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.
Where? I like to correct my typos.
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.
I don’t know if I misunderstood you, or why. But I just don’t have time to go over it.
Do you think it should be the case, and we’re talking about speech rights now.
Fine, let’s draw a line. FTR my position is unchanged, since no-one has presented a reason why it should change.
Here’s what I said to MikeBB (emphasis in original):
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?
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.
Okay, then. So we’re back to square one.
The First Amendment says otherwise though.
You can’t limit speech. You can’t declare that common sense overrules the First Amendment.
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.
Indeed we seem to be because:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why bring up exceptions?
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 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?
Well I clearly haven’t said that. Apology accepted.
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.
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 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.
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.
The decision did not.
Okay, whatever, if that’s what you want.