If I come across someone who makes this general complaint, and refuses or is unable to add any specificity or nuance about whether it is all speech, all money, and all influence, or just certain circumstances and varieties, then I will pass this on to them.
For anyone capable of nuance and specificity, this probably doesn’t apply, and it’s just the general use of slogan-like hyperbole that makes it sound hypocritical without actually necessarily being hypocritical.
No we aren’t. That’s the entire point. There is no distinction.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. You’re sitting here trying to tell me that it would be fine to take away corporate speech rights because, hey, the government probably wouldn’t take all the speech away. It’s completely analogous to asking you if you’d agree to the same situation. If not, you can’t say its okay for others, including corporations, and you need to drop that argument.
Good. Now you just have to accept the fact, which I’ve established, that there are plenty of people out there who do exactly that.
There is no room for nuance here. Either you support free speech, or you don’t. Rights are not conditional or partial.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good. I’m all about government regulating bodily waste: I do not want people to be able to shit wherever they want. I do not believe in a Freedom to Shit Anywhere.
If lance is right, then I oppose all shitting anywhere, and if I approve of someone taking a shit in a bathroom, then I’m a hypocrite.
I’m beginning to see why others are telling us “good luck” when dealing with your points.
Again: "one has to see what the corporations are doing on a case by case basis, otherwise you only fall into generalization fallacies. Basically you are still using a broad brush in your sorry attempt at making this a case of liberal hypocrisy.
Early:
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
Yes it does. It means exactly that. If corporations have no rights, they have no rights. Period. You can’t have it both ways.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, certain opinions.
:rolleyes:
I look forward to you yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater, then.
If corporations don’t have these protections, then there is. If they don’t, then there isn’t. Right now, according to SCOTUS, it appears that they don’t, but that doesn’t mean it will be that way forever.
No, I’m saying that it might be fine for corporations not to have these rights because corporations aren’t people, and I’m not convinced I should be concerned about the rights of corporations. I’m 100% convinced I should be concerned about rights and protections for people; I’m not 100% convinced I should be concerned about all of these same rights and protections for corporations.
You haven’t established that, unless you’ve asked them about this nuance. The ones I’ve spoken to, in general, are capable of this nuance.
So are robots protected by the Bill of Rights? Do animals have the right to not be enslaved? Is saying “dogs aren’t protected by the 13th and 14th amendments” mean that I only conditionally/partially support these rights?
The discussion is about whether these rights apply to corporations or not. Believe it or not, that’s a real and interesting and possibly nuanced discussion. You can choose to treat it as black or white, and believe that anyone who is not 100% sure that corporations should have all these same protections is anti-free-speech, but that’s a choice you’re making (if you believe this).
This should read:
“If corporations don’t have these protections, then there is. If they do, then there isn’t. Right now, according to SCOTUS, it appears that they do, but that doesn’t mean it will be that way forever.”
So do corporations have the right to shit in a bathroom? Or are you going to regulate it so they can only shit in a bathroom?
And the standard “fire and a crowded theatre” comment has arrived, a little late, but to be expected.
If corporations have no rights because they are not people, then churches, lobbying groups, media companies, non-profit groups, clubs, schools and businesses of all kinds would also have no rights.
You could say that churches have no religious rights. The people who go to them have rights, sure, but the churches don’t. So the government could regulate them in any way it chose. And you can figure out the rest.
The idea that only people can have rights is absurd. People can create things and express their rights through those things.
I have clearly established it, but whatever. I’m glad you manage not to talk to people with such crazy views, but they exist.
A robot’s speech would be protected, yes, because it’s not really the robot’s speech. Much like if I recorded an auditotape, you couldn’t claim you can ban it because it’s the audiotape player’s speech and not mine.
This reminds me of the “if gays can marry each other, why can’t they marry their pet dog?” argument.
I believe this. You either support free speech for all, or you don’t. It’s no different from saying you think only some people have freedom of speech. It’s not the speaker who is protected, it’s the SPEECH. If it helps, just think of corporations as instruments of the humans who own and use them for the speech, much like a tape recorder.
P.S. not sure if I should call this a massive straw man or a massive pile.
Very possibly.
Yes – the rest would be that government regulating them would be found by courts to violate the right of the people who attend that church to practice their religion as they see fit.
Possibly, but I think this is much more nuanced than you seem to.
I’m sure they do – our only disagreement is whether they represent all, most, or less than most of those who criticize Citizens United and the massive corporate-money influence on politics (and the ACLU does actually criticize this influence, but they do so while still supporting Citizens U).
But what if it is the robot’s speech, and no one else’s? Or the speech of a computer virus?
Yes, and I think you agree with me – rights are about people, and dogs don’t have anything to do with it. There’s a reasonable discussion about whether corporations do, even if you want to believe that there is no such reasonable discussion.
I believe in freedom of speech for all humans. I’m not sure if I believe in freedom of speech for all non-human entities and organizations. If you want to believe that means I’m against freedom of speech, because I’m not 100% convinced in the same way you are, then you can believe that, but I think that’s silly. I think it’s reasonable to have discussions about what rights apply to what entities and organizations aside from individual humans, and how they apply, and reasonable to not just assume that every non-human thing or organization gets every right in the exact same way that humans do.
Why, exactly? When BP spills oil in the Gulf, or Cal Edison spills methane in California…that’s bad. When Microsoft donates gob-tons of money to promote literacy, that’s good.
When a corporation promotes civil rights, that’s great. When a corporation argues against civil rights (you can still find a very few who argue that restaurants ought to have the right to exclude blacks from being their customers, and there’s a significant number of owners who feel they have the religious right to exclude gays) then that’s bad and ugly.
Why is it “silly” to have a moral compass?
Would you have preferred the old standby of “Make a threat against the President and get back to us” comment?
I once heard a conservative say something stupid once. Boy conservatives sure are stupid. Of course #notallconservatives, but there are conservatives who say the stupid things that one stupid conservative did. Boy conservatives sure are stupid. If only they didn’t say stupid things! Like this one time some guy on Facebook said something stupid. I’m pitting the conservatives who say those stupid things, and all conservatives, because if one conservative says something stupid, then all conservatives are stupid. Even if it was just one conservative guy who wrote something insufficiently nuanced on Facebook one time. Now I think all conservatives are stupid, because of the thing this one guy did, because they all believe that, except the ones who don’t.
Analogy 101: In this analogy…
…“People”=“Corporations”
…“Shit anywhere”=“Participate in all possible ways in the political process”
…“Regulate shitting”=“Regulate corporate participation in politics”
I’m in favor of regulating where people shit, but that doesn’t mean I oppose all shitting.
I’m in favor of regulating how corporations participate in the political process, but that doesn’t mean I oppose all corporate participation in the political process.
I think we’re done here. You’ve walked into the realm of absurdity.
Shitting isn’t a constitutional right though. That’s what is missing in your analogy. If this were just about whether to regulate something, you’d obviously have a point.
No, I like fire in a crowded theatre. It’s the classic driveby comment for any speech discussion. There are exceptions to speech rights! I’m the only one who knew that! It means I can make up any damn exception I want, no matter how ridiculous! I think I’m the first one to walk in and say this!