# Scalia says the 14th amendment doesn't apply to women **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2011, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476 "2011-01-05T10:51:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [January 8, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/61 "2011-01-08T18:05:44Z")
I can claim that the second amendment wouldn’t have passed if its authors had thought it would someday apply to automatic weapons. But it was enacted and now that it’s in effect I think it applies to the current definition of “arms” not the 18th century definition. The same principle should apply to the rest of the Constitution. When it gives rights to a “person” we should use the modern definition of who a person is, not whatever historical definition may have applied when the text was written. So while I feel that the absolute right of individual ownership of firearms is a bad idea, it’s what the law says. If I had been a Justice, I’d have sided with Scalia on Heller and McDonald. Unlike him, I can distinguish between what the law is and what I wish the law to be. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/62 "2011-01-08T20:19:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Then in _Citizen’s United_ Scalia extended personhood to corporations. For all the hand wringing over whether the 14th includes women I personally have never seen the word “corporation” in the constitution yet it seems they deserve constitutional protection. You are just wrong. Scalia’s position in _Citizens United_ had nothing to do with corporate personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/63 "2011-01-08T21:21:18Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > You are just wrong. Scalia’s position in _Citizens United_ had nothing to do with corporate personhood. Perhaps you could explain why you feel Scalia’s position has nothing to do with personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/64 "2011-01-08T22:26:19Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Perhaps you could explain why you feel Scalia’s position has nothing to do with personhood. Read his concurrence. It does not even mention personhood. Scalia believes that the first amendment protects speech, not speakers. > [@Scalia](#): > > The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. Corporate personhood has nothing to do with his opinion. He would have signed onto the same ruling if the case had involved a partnership. > **[CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC1.html)** ---
**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:** [January 8, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/65 "2011-01-08T23:24:24Z")
Scalia’s reasoning was ridiculous. People have rights not objects. Speech doesn’t have a right to be spoken, guns don’t have a right to be owned, and houses don’t have a right to remain unquartered. Scalia once again invented something - the idea that speech itself has a right - in order to justify extending freedom of speech beyond people. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/66 "2011-01-09T00:37:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Scalia’s reasoning was ridiculous. People have rights not objects. Speech doesn’t have a right to be spoken, guns don’t have a right to be owned, and houses don’t have a right to remain unquartered. Scalia once again invented something - the idea that speech itself has a right - in order to justify extending freedom of speech beyond people. Scalia addresses this argument in a footnote: > [@Scalia](#): > > The dissent says that “ ‘speech’ ” refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the freedom of the press. The same footnote asserts that “it has been ‘claimed that the notion of institutional speech . . . did not exist in post-revolutionary America.’ ” This is quoted from a law-review article by a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago (Fagundes, State Actors as First Amendment Speakers, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1637, 1654 (2006)), which offers as the sole support for its statement a treatise dealing with government speech, M. Yudof, When Government Speaks 42–50 (1983). The cited pages of that treatise provide no support whatever for the statement—unless, as seems overwhelmingly likely, the “institutional speech” referred to was speech by the subject of the law-review article, governmental institutions. The other authority cited in the footnote, a law-review article by a professor at Washington and Lee Law School, Bezanson, Institutional Speech, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 735, 775 (1995), in fact contradicts the dissent, in that it would accord free-speech protection to associations. If the government can stop corporate speech, they can stop the speech of the individuals that make up that corporation. Interference with corporate speech is interference with the speech of the people that make up the corporation. Also, if a person takes a originalist view, the Bill of Rights, despite their name, are more about structure than individual rights. The framers would not have seen the Bill of Rights as a grant of rights to individuals. Individual already had these rights (either from the creator or nature). The Bill of Rights acted as a bar to federal government doing certain things that could infer with the rights that individuals already had. Finally, if you take the position that the Bill of Rights only applies to individual human beings, then the New York Times has no right to freedom of speech or the press, which makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/67 "2011-01-09T01:50:42Z")
There is such irony in discussions of how forever predominately male Justices determine the rights of females. And the same holds true for the forever predominately male members of Congress who make the laws and the all male creators of the unammended Constitution. Please, sir, may we have more? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/68 "2011-01-09T02:24:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I can claim that the second amendment wouldn’t have passed if its authors had thought it would someday apply to automatic weapons. But it was enacted and now that it’s in effect I think it applies to the current definition of “arms” not the 18th century definition. The same principle should apply to the rest of the Constitution. When it gives rights to a “person” we should use the modern definition of who a person is, not whatever historical definition may have applied when the text was written. Agreed. But even at the time of the 14th amendment, there was no debate that women, blacks, Indians, or Chinese people were “persons.” Even the most vile racist in the country would have admitted that fact. What I keep coming back to is the modern thought behind the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment that it basically outlaws ALL distinctions between people when you are referring to a favored group like race. It is strict scrutiny for ANY law that deals with race, intermediate scrutiny for gender, etc. And I contend that the language in section 2 makes this whole line of thought absurdly wrong. The drafters of the amendment not only contemplated, but clearly outlined a method in which a state could treat blacks and women VERY unequal in the eyes of the law, and they didn’t think it in violation of section 1 right above it. I understand, John Mace, that it was a compromise to get the amendment passed, but to agree with your interpretation, section 2 should begin with a qualifier like “Notwithstanding section 1” or “Nothing in section 1 shall be construed to…” As it is written it seems to dismiss as not worth mentioning the idea that “equal protection” means no laws which distinguish based on race or sex. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/69 "2011-01-09T05:41:46Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > If the government can stop corporate speech, they can stop the speech of the individuals that make up that corporation. Interference with corporate speech is interference with the speech of the people that make up the corporation. That makes no sense. If you follow that argument, then you can claim that people who do not work for a corporation have no freedom of speech. Obviously, that’s not the case. People have rights as individuals not based on who their employer is. > [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > Also, if a person takes a originalist view, the Bill of Rights, despite their name, are more about structure than individual rights. The framers would not have seen the Bill of Rights as a grant of rights to individuals. Individual already had these rights (either from the creator or nature). The Bill of Rights acted as a bar to federal government doing certain things that could infer with the rights that individuals already had. The Bill of Rights wasn’t granting these rights. It was recognizing their existence. And most of those rights were individual rights. > [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > Finally, if you take the position that the Bill of Rights only applies to individual human beings, then the New York Times has no right to freedom of speech or the press, which makes no sense. Again, your argument doesn’t work. The people who publish the New York Times and the people who write for the New York Times have the right of a free press. The press itself doesn’t have any rights. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/70 "2011-01-09T07:34:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That makes no sense. If you follow that argument, then you can claim that people who do not work for a corporation have no freedom of speech. How? The point is that speech cannot get restricted no matter how the speaker choices to speak. He can speak as an individual or as a part of a group. > [@](#): > > The people who publish the New York Times and the people who write for the New York Times have the right of a free press. The press itself doesn’t have any rights. The Times’ speech is protected by the 1st amendment. If it wasn’t, the government the government could shut down the paper and force the individuals to publish as individuals. The individuals that make the times have right come together as a corporation and speak as a corporation–they could also come together as a partnership or some type of group. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/71 "2011-01-09T15:30:15Z")
If a corporation is equivalent to a person in granting the protections of the constitution then does the constitution protect foreigners? > [@](#): > > According to the website Economy in Crisis, “Foreign ownership refers to ownership of assets of a particular industry by foreign controlled domestic U.S. Corporations (FDC) 50% or more owned by a foreign entity.”[1] > > By that definition, the percentage of foreign ownership as of 2002 by industrial sector was as follows:[2] > > ``` > * Sound recording industries - 97% > * Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79% > * Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75% > * Metal ore mining - 65% > * Motion picture and video industries - 64% > * Wineries and distilleries - 64% > * Database, directory, and other publishers - 63% > * Book publishers - 63% > * Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62% > * Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57% > * Rubber product - 53% > * Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53% > * Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52% > * Plastics product - 51% > * Other insurance related activities - 51% > * Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50% > > ``` > > SOURCE: [Foreign ownership of U.S. corporations - SourceWatch](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations) The above is one of the clearest examples of why a corporation is not equivalent to a person and not deserving of the same protections under the constitution. Scalia said: > [@](#): > > If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society. > > SOURCE: [http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1](http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1) Seems that’s what we did when it came to corporate speech and here we have a superannuated judge impose his demands on society. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/72 "2011-01-09T18:04:41Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > How? The point is that speech cannot get restricted no matter how the speaker choices to speak. He can speak as an individual or as a part of a group. I have no idea how. You were the one who made the claim. I was the one who said it your claim made no sense. > [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > The Times’ speech is protected by the 1st amendment. If it wasn’t, the government the government could shut down the paper and force the individuals to publish as individuals. The individuals that make the times have right come together as a corporation and speak as a corporation–they could also come together as a partnership or some type of group. If the government shut down the Times, it would be restricting the speech of the people who write in it. But the newspaper itself would not have any claim. People have rights - not newspapers or corporations or partnerships. And Whack-a-Mole makes a good point. Non-Americans can acquire ownership of an American corporation. By Scalia’s interpretation of the law that means they can acquire the rights of an American citizen without being an American citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/73 "2011-01-09T18:41:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have no idea how. You were the one who made the claim. I was the one who said it your claim made no sense. You claimed that the result of following the argument that I presented would be free speech rights only for people that work at corporations. I want to know how this result follows from the argument that I presented. > [@](#): > > If the government shut down the Times, it would be restricting the speech of the people who write in it. But the newspaper itself would not have any claim. People have rights - not newspapers or corporations or partnerships. That is not an accurate representation of the law. Read _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_. Or read _New York Times Co. v. The United States_. [http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html](http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html) [http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/254/case.html](http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/254/case.html) > [@](#): > > And Whack-a-Mole makes a good point. Non-Americans can acquire ownership of an American corporation. By Scalia’s interpretation of the law that means they can acquire the rights of an American citizen without being an American citizen. The government cannot restrict the speech of non-American either. It they could, they could ban the works or Ian Ewan or Richard Dawkins. They could block any foreign website. The government cannot do these things. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/74 "2011-01-09T20:21:19Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > You claimed that the result of following the argument that I presented would be free speech rights only for people that work at corporations. I want to know how this result follows from the argument that I presented. You claim that denying the right to free speech to a corporation would deny that right to the people who worked for the corporation. (“If the government can stop corporate speech, they can stop the speech of the individuals that make up that corporation.”) The only way that would happen would be if the rights of the people were part of their employment. If people hold the right to free speech than it’s unrelated to their employment. Corporate employees have the right. Independant businessman have the right. Unemployed people have the right. The right is inherent in them being a person, not derived from some corporation. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/75 "2011-01-09T20:40:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You claim that denying the right to free speech to a corporation would deny that right to the people who worked for the corporation. (“If the government can stop corporate speech, they can stop the speech of the individuals that make up that corporation.”) The only way that would happen would be if the rights of the people were part of their employment. > > If people hold the right to free speech than it’s unrelated to their employment. Corporate employees have the right. Independant businessman have the right. Unemployed people have the right. The right is inherent in them being a person, not derived from some corporation. I never said the right was derived from being a part of the corporation–the point is the government cannot restrict speech whether that speech comes from a citizen, a foreigner, a corporation, or a partnership. A limit on corporate speech is limit on individuals’ speech. If the government blocks corporate speech, the government is blocking the speech of the individuals that make up that corporation. Sure the individuals could still speak as individuals, but they can no longer speak as corporation. Going back to the Times: if the Times’ speech can be blocked, the individuals could speak on their own, but that is not want they want to do. They want to speak as the Times. If the government could block corporate speech, they could ban all editorials signed by the Times. Do you think the government should be able to block corporate speech and force the members of the corporation to speak as individuals? Do you think the government can block the speech of non-citizens? Do you think it would be a good thing if the government could do these things? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/76 "2011-01-09T23:08:32Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > A limit on corporate speech is limit on individuals’ speech. No, it is not. Free speech is not an absolute freedom. It is circumscribed in many ways (can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, slander/libel, hate speech and so on). A group who comes together for an explicit purpose such as, say, advancing gun owner rights is fine. That’s what they do. I doubt the people who belong to the NRA want to see the NRA get involved in the abortion debate though and would be rightly angry if they did. If they want to advance their side of the abortion debate there are other groups. A company who makes widgets however does not speak for its stock owners on almost any subject. They are there to make widgets. By granting unfettered free speech rights to a corporation they have diminished my right to free speech. I cannot compete with Exxon when it comes to being able to throw money into campaign messages. Further, if I were a stock owner in Exxon, they are not necessarily representing my ideals. Nor are they representative of their employees (necessarily). Exxon does not poll its shareholders or employees to determine its message. Its message is dictated by a very few at the top who leverage the resources of a company to get the message they want out. The company is not an individual. It is not me. It does not speak for me. As in the past with other constitutional rights the courts recognize they are not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed upon them. Restricting corporations in this respect was fine. In all the time they were restricted I never heard of one case that displayed the horrors of a censored company. In order to lend my voice more strength (and that of every citizen) these restrictions were fine. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/77 "2011-01-09T23:21:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, it is not. It certainly is a limit. It limits the individuals’ ability to speak as a corporation. You might think the limitation is justified, but it is still a limitation. Edit - You also have not withdrawn or defended your claim that Scalia extended personhood to corporations in _Citizens_. As I earlier noted, Scalia does not even mention corporate personhood in _Citizens_. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/78 "2011-01-09T23:56:50Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > It certainly is a limit. It limits the individuals’ ability to speak as a corporation. Which places no limit on their ability to speak as an individual. As the founders intended. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/79 "2011-01-10T00:27:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which places no limit on their ability to speak as an individual. As the founders intended. Since I am not an originalist, I do not care about the founder’s intentions. But, there is no evidence that the founders thought people’s right to freedom of speech only included the right to speak as an individual and not as part of a group. Why wouldn’t the right to freedom of speech also include the right to speak in association with others? Part of the first amendment is the right to assemble and petition the government. The inclusion of the freedom of assembly suggests that founders considered it important to allow people to act as both individuals and in groups. Further, I don’t want want to go back to founder’s idea of free speech. The founders probably only saw freedom of speech as freedom from prior restraint. It is far from clear that founders thought the first amendment abolished the crime of seditious libel. States that had provisions similar to the first amendment at the time the first amendment was passed still allowed prosecutions for seditious libel. The founders likely did not understand the first amendment to outlaw blasphemy. The founders would not have seen the first amendment as providing the protection from obscenity prosecutions that it does today. And it would be a terrible policy to allow restriction of corporate speech. It would allow the government to restrict the New York Times’ speech and force all members of Times to speak as individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476/80 "2011-01-10T02:51:16Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > It would allow the government to restrict the New York Times’ speech and force all members of Times to speak as individuals. You need to read the [First Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)again. The freedom of the press is specifically protected, independent of individual freedom of expression. Nice try though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-says-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-women/566476.md?page=5)