Sure they are. And they’re entitled to the same rights as any other person has. But I don’t see any reason they’re entitled to rights that other people don’t have.
(ETA: I wrote this without seeing your 10:40 AM post)
I don’t want to get sidetracked into the easy question of whether or not dogs have (or are capable of exercising) freedom of speech.
I do want to press you into exploring the trickier areas of your contention.
The tricky part is that following the broad statement “corporations do not have rights” leads to absurd situations (it’s my assumption that you would find these situations absurd; correct me if I’m wrong).
It would mean that any state (or the Federal government) would be able to outlaw any communications produced by any organization that is not ostensibly “the press.” For example, Mississippi could ban Planned Parenthood from distributing any materials in the state. Whereas an individual could distribute pamphlets, it would be unlawful for the parent organziation to participate in funding, printing, coordinating, or any other related activity.
Finding loopholes in this (e.g. when Planned Parenthood distributes pamphlets it is acting as “the press”) simply re-opens the door to unfettered corporate communication and imbues them with an equivalent right to free speech. You’re right back where you started.
So the question is, how would/should you restrict “corporate” speech without examining the content thereof, and without decimating the standards of communication that we take for granted?
I’m not suggesting that unfettered corporate communications are a good thing (e.g. the Koch Brothers astro-turfing of climate denialism or other chicanery), but stopping at “corporations do not have free speech” is prematurely ending your analysis.
My understanding of this is pretty limited, so I’ll toss out what I think I know and get corrected.
Once upon a time, someone wanted to sue a corporation, or a corporation wanted to sue someone, but it couldn’t sue or be sued because it wasn’t a person. For the purposes of suing, entering contracts etc. the courts decided corps could be considered persons. As corporations got bigger wealthier and more powerful, they started arguing they deserve more civil rights that humans enjoy. Now they basically buy elections using their freedom of speech and millions of dollars, and our so-called “conservative” judges keep hearing the cases and agreeing with them.
There’s a couple threads going right now about what you’d do with 50 billion dollars. One thing I’d like to do - actually two things - is if I had 50 billion to play with, I’d form a corporation and sue for the right to marry and adopt children. Wasn’t there a movie about that? Hopefully people would see how ridiculous things have gotten and insist judges start using a little common sense.
Of course corporations don’t have the right to marry, or adopt children, or vote, or be enumerated in the census.
Corporations are not human beings. It is a legal fiction though that they can be treated as human beings for certain purposes. Namely, taxation, entering into contracts, owning property, and suing and being sued.
Corporate free speech is nothing more than the ability of a group of human beings being able to say the same things an individual person would be able to do. Obviously it would be absurd to say that one person can print a pamphlet and distribute it on street corders, but a group of people cannot. Or that an individual can own a radio or television station and say what they like, but a group of people cannot.
You’re taking my position further than I intend it to go. As I stated I have no problem with the idea of a non-person being assigned rights because it serves a reasonable purpose. What I object to is the idea that non-persons have inherent rights. My position is that only people are entitled to rights. Non-persons can be given or denied rights as is convenient without worrying about what they’re entitled to.
I also have no problem with a corporation being used as a means of delivering speech. But we need to keep it clear that the right of free speech is retained by the person who’s speaking not by the corporation that is conveying the message. To use your example, it would be unconstitutional for Mississippi to restrict the distribution of Planned Parenthood pamphlets. But it would be unconstitutional because it restricted the rights of people to write and read those pamphlets, not because it restricted Planned Parenthood.
If Planned Parenthood has some special right to speech then doesn’t that mean that people who don’t work for Planned Parenthood lack that right? And why should some people be denied a right because they don’t work for Planned Parenthood? How can a person’s employment status be relevent to their constitutional rights?
i’m more interested in the biology of it. a corporation is actually a living thing that can live for more than 1,000 years.
The First Amendment does not say “the right of the people to speak shall not be abridged.” Instead it says “Congress shall make no law.” The personhood of corporations is irrelevant to Citizens United, except for the power to bring the lawsuit. The First Amendment is a restriction on the power of Congress, not an enumeration of the rights of the people.
People, Puppies, whatever.
I was thinking about this about a month ago. What happens when a corporation holds a copyright? Could a copyright be held basically forever if the corporation never “dies”?
FWIW: I found the answer pretty easily online.
That is more or less correct. You can’t marry or adopt a corporation for example. You can’t take a corporation to the Prom. There are many ways in which a corporation is different from an actual person.
There are several practical reasons corporations are considered “persons” for tax and liability purposes. It allows the corporation to exist as an entity independent of individual owners. For example, the company doesn’t disolve as an entity if the owner dies or quits. It also provides some protection for the owners in the event of a lawsuit or other event. It may sound like it gives a free pass to those big corporate fat cats, however consider that if you are enrolled in a 401k, you are technically part owner of any company that is in your 401k plan.
Also, the fact that the corporation is considered a separate legal entity from the owners does not provide protection against committing criminal acts. The officers of a corporation can still be held accountable for their actions. Although note that simply being incomepetent and getting paid a lot of money isn’t against the law.
I’m still wondering what Little Nemo meant when he claimed that corporations were claiming rights that no individual held. I certainly don’t see it.
Do you regard this as the inferrable intent of the Founders? Or just a literal reading of that Amendment?
A favorite debating trick is to argue against only the stupidest or most extreme of one’s opponents. No serious commentator argues against corporations per se, to pretend otherwise is to invent a strawman to argue against.
“They the Corporations” ? 
I’m not an expert either, but I think you have it backwards. Sueing and being sued is the default. 
The special rule that led to corporations was a prohibition against sueing shareholders. Stated differently, the earliest charters expressly limited liability rather than allowing it; indeed corporations are called “Limited Liability Companies.”
The literal reading of the amendment is that speech is protected. There is no mention of the source of the speech.
Do my speakers enjoy the right to free speech because speech comes out of them?
This is a key point to bear in mind when debating the fundamental nature of corporations. For examples
-
Corporations with potential liabilities have been known to structure an operation or sale such that the liable party is a small corporate affiliate. Corporation as “fictitious person” originated as a device so that no person (or “legal person”!) would be liable, beyond his/her/its invested capital. (Contrast this with Lloyds’ insurance pools which involve personal unlimited liability.)
-
Much profit made by financial corporations in the good times, often made via fraudulent activities, is exempt from recovery by victims: it’s been paid (or obliged to be paid) already to executives and traders who are immune to litigation directed against their own “strawman”, the fictitious financial “legal person.”
-
Out of a “fiduciary duty to stockholders,” it is possible for a corporation to engage in (or even feel itself obligated to engage in) activities so morally repugnant that no relevant human person would condone, if he/she were the owner/operator.
(The above is not a general screed against corporations. I do hope it serves as a warning against some misconceptions among the naïve worshippers of Greed is God dogma.)
Again, speech is protected. Whatever the method of delivery is and whatever its source is. Read the amendment, maybe it’ll help.
Terr, I’m actually with you on the issue of avoiding restrictions on speech unless clearly necessary, but for the purposes of this discussion, I don’t think levdrakon and Little Nemo are focused on the word speech in the first amendment so much as they are on the word freedom that appears just before it.
It makes sense to apply a freedom of speech to a person (natural or corporate) but no sense to apply a freedom of speech to an inanimate object (post #34) or a dog (post #8.)
The “freedom” is applied to “speech”. As in no restrictions on it. Not to a person or to an inanimate object or a dog.
Speech is allowed to say whatever it wants? :dubious:
No, “freedom” is applied to speakers, not to speech.
It says “freedom of speech” not “freedom by speech.”
This becomes easier to understand if we think of it as a matter of freedom of the press rather than freedom of speech. The Supreme Court treated this as a corporate freedom of the press issue not only in Citizens United but also in New york Times v. Sullivan and New York Times v. United States, among many others.
There really isn’t much of a question that First Amendment freedoms apply to corporations.