Which has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
No, but the reason isn’t because the corporation that owns the Chicago Reader is entitled to its freedom of speech.
I didn’t make such a claim, as you can see in Post #17. What I said was that if such a claim was made, here were my reasons for disputing it.
But surely First Amendment freedoms can be exercised corporately, right? A printing press can be owned, and frequently is owned, by a corporation.
But the point is that the Chicago Reader doesn’t have anything to say. Alison Draper has something to say. And Mara Shalhoup. And Kate Schmidt, Tony Adler, J.R. Jones, Philip Montoro, Steve Bogira, Mick Dumke, Michael Miner. Deanna Isaacs, Ben Joravsky, Peter Margasak, Miles Raymer, Mike Sula, Julia Thiel, Kevin Warwick, and Sam Worley. These people have things to say. They may choose to say it via the Chicago Reader but they could also speak without the Chicago Reader.
Just to be clear, if I buy your book and decide to burn it, I’m not violating that book’s rights. Further, if that copy is the sole copy of that book in existence, I can still burn it. A physical book enjoys no rights that could prevent me.
Certainly these individuals retain the right to state their case in any forum. But the Reader has a corporate right to print these articles, and to enjoy the benefits of this as well as assuming a significant proportion of any liability that might accrue from this work.
*New York Times v. Sullivan * makes this all very clear.
But I’m not disputing property rights like ownership, liability, operating a business, signing contracts, etc. I’m disputing the idea of civil rights like freedom of speech.
I can see how a corporation can have property rights that are distinct from the property rights of the people who own the corporation - a corporation can own something that no individual person owns. But I’m not seeing how a corporation can have civil rights that are distinct from the civil rights of the people who own the corporation - a corporation cannot say something that no individual person said. Despite what some people have claimed here, speech only has one source - a human being.
As I said, property rights trump freedom of speech.
But - the Congress cannot forbid me to have that book. That’s not MY “freedom of speech” - since I am not the source of speech here.
A group of people can certainly say things no individual person said. The Declaration of Independence was drafted by a committee.
And since we are also talking about rights to freedom of the press, where editorial and publishing decisions are made in addition to the input of the individual or corporate author - there is certainly a corporate aspect to this right.
The Supreme Court decisions I have mentioned have a corporation as the appellant, namely the New York Times Corporation. How can you ignore that?
Why?
I’m not ignoring it. I just don’t see how The New York Times Company v. L. B. Sullivan has any relevance to the debate. The issue discussed in that case did not hinge on the question of individual vs corporate rights and that distinction wasn’t raised in the decision.
Something is unclear here.
You dispute the idea that a corporation can have freedom of speech. This suggests that you feel the gov’t can legitimately pass a law restricting the content of Cheesesteak Corp’s speech based activity, beyond the restrictions in place for individual speech.
If that is the case, then aren’t you inherently restricting the speech of C. Corp’s Chairman, CEO and ownership (me)? For a widely held company, wouldn’t that restrict the ability of shareholders to hire people to speak on their behalf?
The way I see it “corporate free-speech” is simply shorthand to illustrate your point that no corporation’s speech is distinct from the personal free speech of the people in the corporation.
It’s not individual vs. corporate right - just a recognition that corporations enjoy First Amendment protections. Same as with Citizens United, New York Times v. United States, and scores of other cases I could cite.
My point is that I feel the standard should be personal free speech is protected. If a law is passed which restricts your freedom of speech then it’s unconstitutional. That would include a law which censored Cheesesteak Corp - not because it limited the freedom of speech of Cheesesteak Corp but because it limited the freedom of speech of you, Cheesesteak.
But let’s assume for a moment that we’re discussing some form of speech which is recognized as being subject to legal regulation. If an individual is subject to a regulation than that individual shouldn’t be able to do a legal flanking manuever by having a corporation “speak” for him. Cheesesteak Corp shouldn’t be able to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre or do anything else that Cheesesteak can’t legally do.
But the point I think you are missing is that corporate speech may be quite distinct from individual speech. The moderators here are implementing corporate policy when they moderate - they are not acting as regular board posters at that particular time.
Doesn’t matter - both kinds of expression have their place and are protected.
But ultimately it’s a person speaking in either case. The Straight Dope Message Board does not have an AI program that can generate its own posts.
So are you arguing that tomndebb, for example, has constitutional speech rights as a corporate representative that you do not have because you are not representing some corporation? How is that constitutional? It strikes me as analogous to the argument that the right of firearm ownership is dependant on membership in a militia. Your personal rights should not be dependant on belonging to some organization.
The amendment doesn’t say “freedom of personal speech”. It says “freedom of speech”. Without specifying or restricting the speech’s origin.
No - I am saying that when tomndebb puts his mod hat on, he is speaking for the corporation for the purpose of enforcing board rules. He may personally object to this action, but that isn’t generally an issue because he isn’t doing it personally, he is acting on behalf of rules set up by the corporation.
At all times he has personal rights of expression - he has a responsibility to assist a corporation in its mission in this regard because of a responsibility undertaken on behalf of the board. None of this diminishes or increases his freedom in any way, it is just an added responsibility. Most of us have these from time to time because of positions we hold in companies, organizations, churches, and the like.
I really don’t know why this is such a mystery to you.
Can you give an example of speech that doesn’t originate from a person?