# Fuck the First Amendment, then **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 14, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135 "2012-06-14T14:19:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/21 "2012-06-14T21:08:56Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Concur. Corporations are right now _better_ than people; they have the rights of citizens when it’s convenient and benefits them, such as the First Amendment, but suffer few of the consequences or burdens of citizens. > > The thing that should be blindingly obviously clear is that corporations are not persons. They _can’t_ be persons in every way possible. They are only _virtual_ persons. We allow the simulation because _in some instances_ it allows the law to work better than otherwise. However, jumping straight from there to ‘Corporations are people and you are un-American if you want to abridge their First Amendment rights!’ is more than a little crazy. Not to mention: corporations only exist to make money (if they “make the world better”, they’re charities), and therefore the only speech they’re capable of is commercial speech. And there’s plenty of history and precedent on government restriction and regulation of commercial speech. Even when they donate money to a political candidate, the “speech” is commercial, in that the only motivation for the corporation to make such a donation is to increase its income. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/22 "2012-06-14T21:25:06Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Not to mention: corporations only exist to make money The Sierra Club and The NRA only exist “to make money”? That’s some rather weird reasoning. Would you mind explaining it to me. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/23 "2012-06-14T22:01:57Z")
Ive been wondering for a while now: if corporations are people, shouldn’t the NYSE be considered a form of slave trading, which is unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/24 "2012-06-14T23:24:45Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > The way things stand at present, a few million dollars have infinitely more free speech than I do. > > If I go to a political demonstration and try to use a bull horn to be heard, I’ll be arrested. > > If I go to a demonstration and carry a sign close enough for a candidate or other person to see it, I’ll be arrested. > > If I shout out in protest at a speech, I’ll be arrested. > > But if I have millions to spend on ads and robocalls, I cannot be ignored. If only there were some way to combine your money and effort with those of like-minded people. Some legal vehicle for acting collectively… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/25 "2012-06-14T23:31:13Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > The way things stand at present, a few million dollars have infinitely more free speech than I do. > > If I go to a political demonstration and try to use a bull horn to be heard, I’ll be arrested. > > If I go to a demonstration and carry a sign close enough for a candidate or other person to see it, I’ll be arrested. > > If I shout out in protest at a speech, I’ll be arrested. > > But if I have millions to spend on ads and robocalls, I cannot be ignored. I’m really tired of this canard. If you have Internet access, you can start a blog. No one has to watch ads. Nor do the ads bought by me somehow stop you from also buying ads. In each of you examples, your attempts at speech stopped someone else from speaking. Here, ads don’t stop other people from speaking. Try to focus on that distinction, please. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/26 "2012-06-14T23:32:13Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > Ive been wondering for a while now: if corporations are people, shouldn’t the NYSE be considered a form of slave trading, which is unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment? No. If you have any other questions, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/27 "2012-06-14T23:46:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > If you have any other questions, let me know. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/28 "2012-06-14T23:49:43Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > Why not? It would not be beneficial to consider corporations as persons with regard to the stock market, so they don’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/29 "2012-06-15T00:25:24Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > the most bizarre mixed metaphor I’ve encountered in some time. Thank you, I’m hoping for a snarky prize at year’s end. I think the concern about allegedly inhuman corporations is a mistake for the Dems. Corporations are tools people use. The real issue is disparity of opportunity (opportunity in this case being money) leading to unbalanced presentation of competing arguments. That can be a disparity between several individually acting natural persons, several corporations, several PAC’s, several political parties, whatever. Just because I pay the salaries of the people who work at the company with the trusted trademark name, or who own the presses, or who have the broadcast license, doesn’t make me right, or even more credible. It doesn’t even mean I’m honest. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/30 "2012-06-15T00:55:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Corporations are tools people use. It’s a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or…uh, a…an alligator. ---
**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:** [June 15, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/31 "2012-06-15T00:57:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is simply another cry for, “I don’t care what the text says, do it my way!” (Option 1) > > Options 2 and 3 are absolutely honest and consistent with our notions of self-government. > > As is opposition to options 2 and 3. Which I have. So, good luck to you as you go about trying options 2 and 3, and I will try to oppose you. > > Betcha I win. Actually, it’s justified irritation at **Stratocaster** ’s nonsensical rant about justices who find rights in shadows of penubras, while he simultaneously defends a right that was made up out of thin air- or at best was itself found “in the shadow of a penumbra.” I suppose the irony might have been intentional, in which case I salute him, but that stretches even my considerably powers of optimism. > [@](#): > > Not a chance, IMO. CU was decided properly. The First Amendment’s “text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.” Here it is:There is no “except for corporations” clause there. Personal liberties, particularly those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, don’t evaporate because people–even if it’s lots of people–don’t like them. There is no constitutional basis for overturning this. Ginsburg, as she often does, misses the point entirely. If this is ever overturned, it will be yet another example of at least 5 of the Justices detecting a right, lurking in the shadow of a penumbra, or in the Force, or with their Spider-sense. Because there is nothing in the Constitution that provides room for that decision. Hasn’t stopped them on many occasions before, but not a chance on this one. Not now. Perhaps you agree with his reasoning. That is of course your right. However, if the First Amendment protects corporations’ right to free speech because it doesn’t explicitly exclude them, it presumably protects foreign governments’ free speech rights, too. After all, they’re not mentioned, either. How do you feel about a billion-dollar Chinese government donation to the campaign of Hippie Q. McFreakington, Social Muslim Party presidential candidate? It’s a trick question, because it doesn’t matter what you think: _it’s constitutionally protected!_ ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/32 "2012-06-15T01:05:13Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Not to mention: corporations only exist to make money (if they “make the world better”, they’re charities) You can have a corporation that is not-for-profit but is not a charity. Citizens United was, in fact, a not-for-profit corporation. [QUOTE=LesshaJoy] Why not? [/QUOTE] Because corporations are not people; they are not natural persons. They are _legal persons_. A human being is a natural person; there’s a rather huge difference. The courts did not, and have never, ever, in any civilized country, asserted that a corporation is equal to a human being. “Legal person” is a term of art that applies to corporations as well as almost any other typeof organiation that can be seen as a legal entity; school boards, departments of government, towns, charities, etc. are all legal persons. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/33 "2012-06-15T01:13:38Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I disagree with Citizens United, but it is the now the law until the USSC sees the error of their ways, if ever. I think Mitt Romney put the CU decision in the most understandable light: “Corporations are people, my friend”. I don’t agree. People don’t have articles of incorporation, by-laws, stock shares, etc. Corporations do not have lives of their own. Citizens United has no wording in it that has anything to do with “corporations are people” concept. I suggest you read the decision. It is decided on the basis that the first amendment protects speech with no regard to its source. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/34 "2012-06-15T01:53:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > If you have any other questions, let me know. > [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > Why not? Because: > [@RickJay](#): > > Because corporations are not people; they are not natural persons. They are _legal persons_. A human being is a natural person; there’s a rather huge difference. > > The courts did not, and have never, ever, in any civilized country, asserted that a corporation is equal to a human being. “Legal person” is a term of art that applies to corporations as well as almost any other typeof organiation that can be seen as a legal entity; school boards, departments of government, towns, charities, etc. are all legal persons. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/35 "2012-06-15T02:01:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Actually, it’s justified irritation at **Stratocaster** ’s nonsensical rant about justices who find rights in shadows of penubras, while he simultaneously defends a right that was made up out of thin air- or at best was itself found “in the shadow of a penumbra.” Here, I’ll help you out since you seem to have missed this (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > **Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech** , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No need to conjure something out of thin air. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” You want an example of something pulled from thin air? “Congress has the power to restrict the political expression of corporations,” a statement in direct contradiction to the text I provided. Glad to be of assistance. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/36 "2012-06-15T02:33:21Z")
Does Congress have the right to pass a law against libel, slander, or fraud? If so, explain how these are not speech. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/37 "2012-06-15T02:58:17Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Does Congress have the right to pass a law against libel, slander, or fraud? > > If so, explain how these are not speech. No, and there are no federal laws against libelous speech, slanderous speech, or fraudulent speech. See the overturning of the “Stolen Valor Act” for example. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/38 "2012-06-15T02:59:41Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Cooperations did not exist in the way they do today, they were usually chartered or statutory entities set up or promoted by governments. I was aware of this and I feel it’s major evidence to support my argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/39 "2012-06-15T03:07:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, and there are no federal laws against libelous speech, slanderous speech, or fraudulent speech. See the overturning of the “Stolen Valor Act” for example. It’s only overturned in the Ninth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit upheld it. SCOTUS is pondering the issue now. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/40 "2012-06-15T03:10:56Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Does Congress have the right to pass a law against libel, slander, or fraud? > > If so, explain how these are not speech. Terr’s post aside, that is a valid question. In fact U.S. courts have long held that a very limited number of types of expression are not protected speech. Libel and slander aren’t very good examples because those are usually civil matters, not criminal, but obscenity is obviously something that has at times been restricted, and commercial speech is restricted in many ways. “Fighting words” are not protected speech, nor do you have a right to engage in speech if you are violating someone’s copyright in doing so. But that’s the key thing; the issue is the type of speech, _not who is saying it_. Nobody has ever suggested the documentary Citizens United was sponsoring was obscene, or a violation of a copyright, or fighting words. It was clearly and unambiguously political in intent, _which is the very type of speech the First Amendment was specifically written to protect._ The only objection to it is who was paying to put it on the air; a conservative non-profit corporation. It strikes me as sort of weird that people would propose a system whereby it is illegal for several thousand people to pool their money to air a documentary, but perfectly legal for Bill Gates, as an individual, to do precisely the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135.md?page=3)