Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

To promote a particular message? Again, especially these days (with blogs and so on), the difference between a government designated "media corporation" and a regular one is very small.

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

You also, again, ignore that the decision also covers

-Labour unions -Non profit organizations -Small businesses that happen to be registered as corporations -etc etc etc

I would really, really like you to point out where I "ignored that before".

[kaijyuu]

To promote a particular message? Again, especially these days (with blogs and so on), the difference between a government designated "media corporation" and a regular one is very small.

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

Lobbying, campaign donations, and other politics manipulation for the sake of market control. Well I guess that "has something to do with what their business is doing," but obviously not worth protecting.

[GreatJustice]

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

Well in the case of Citizens United, a non-profit organization wanted to make a documentary with a negative portrayal of Hillary Clinton. However, according to previous election laws, they were not allowed to do so during election season. After the decision was made in their favour, they were free to put aforementioned film on cable TV.

Before the ruling, corporations/nonprofits/unions/etc were just as free to spend money influencing elections, they just had to do it through those trusty news corporations.

I would really, really like you to point out where I "ignored that before".

You have said, every single time in reference the ruling, that it effects "Corporations". Every attack on my argument is based on this only applying to corporations. Case in point:

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

-Non profits do not make products
-Unions do not make products (unless you count higher union wages as a product which is some weird wording)
-Non profits are not businesses
-Unions are businesses, but that question basically answers itself so I highly doubt you were applying it in that sense

Even the ACLU was pretty much in favour of this one, just sayin'.

Taking the postulate "organizations aren't people, thus don't have rights associated with people" to its logical conclusion, does not mean they can't do anything at all, or be blamed for things. It just means the laws relating to them can be extremely arbitrary. So basically, what we have now, only Congress/etc could make whatever the hell law they wanted instead of stumbling around with this half personhood silliness. Laws would be argued as to their practicality* rather than constitutionality.



*Well obviously they wouldn't be practical, because practicality is the last thing on a representative's mind, long behind appeasing their constituents. But that's beside the point.

To say that organizations are people is rather silly, but the fact of the matter is that the First Amendment covers organizations just as much as individuals. Lets look at the 1st Amendment again, in whole:

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.

Notice how it says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH". That's fairly unambiguous language.

Now answer me this: which is more practical, having the FEC decide who can have freedom of speech under what circumstances, or simply considering speech from all (domestic, obviously) sources to be covered under the 1st Amendment?

[kaijyuu]

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

[GreatJustice]

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.

Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice. 

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.

[Frumple]

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.

... a corporation has no ears to be read the Miranda rights to. It has no eyes to read an indiction. It has no voice to speak to lawyers, nor hands to write orders to them. It has no physical presence. A corporation is an organizational trick we use to make it easier for us to deal with the actions of individuals in aggregate. It's not a thing. It doesn't actually exist, at all, outside of peoples' minds. A corporation is no more a person or a citizen than an imaginary country in a madman's head is a geopolitical entity. This is true of all organizations. They're not things. They're organizational tools, that help other individuals address and work with groups acting in congregate. To date, outside of Citizen's United, tools and cognitive shortcuts have not been allowed the legal protection of free speech, only the individuals that use those tools and shortcuts. That we have given a imaginary entity non-imaginary rights that actively infringe on the rights of non-imaginary entities is entirely mind boggling.

Corps neither speak nor write. They can't communicate in any method whatsoever. It makes no bloody sense to give free speech protections to something that cannot practice free speech. As we see with terribly clarity, doing so allows individuals to do some frankly terribly shit by hiding behind their imaginary shield.

We should have laws protecting how we deal with people who are working in aggregate toward a particular goal or goals, yes, of course, but calling that group an individual and treating it as an individual citizen is not how you do it by any sane measure.

[kaijyuu]

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.

Are you arguing that one's ability to sue is what gives the claim legitimacy?

Guess I should hire my dog a lawyer next time angry neighbors complain.

[ggamer]

I know you guys are in balls-to-the-walls liberal mode right now, and my sanity would not be benefited by posting this, but god damn if it is not the most hilarious thing.

I just found this today, and thought it would be appropriate since we were having this discussion a short while ago.

Feel free to ravenously and unopposedly dissect it, I'm going to sleep.

[Leafsnail]

Badly done "satire".  Satire can't just be "MAN I'M SUCH A STUPID MORON, HAHA LAUGH AT ME" for the entire piece like that.  It's like something you'd see in the playground.

That aside, the arguments he puts forward (in an unfunny way) are:
- Lots of people oppose gay marriage, therefore that makes the position okay
- If someone's doing something bad then it's okay as long as other people are doing worse things
- If you do some good that justifies doing a lot of bad
- Strawmanning
- Making a small difference means you're not making any difference at all
- Boycotting them could make people lose jobs.  Sure, but wherever else we take our business to would gain jobs so it's irrelevant
- We should boycott Koch stuff.  That's actually a legitimately good idea (although they seem to have accidentally said "sometimes donates to tea-party affiliated organizations" when they mean "astroturfed the entire tea-party movement").
- Liberals are unemployed lol
- Bizarre rambling

[GreatJustice]

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.

... a corporation has no ears to be read the Miranda rights to. It has no eyes to read an indiction. It has no voice to speak to lawyers, nor hands to write orders to them. It has no physical presence. A corporation is an organizational trick we use to make it easier for us to deal with the actions of individuals in aggregate. It's not a thing. It doesn't actually exist, at all, outside of peoples' minds. A corporation is no more a person or a citizen than an imaginary country in a madman's head is a geopolitical entity. This is true of all organizations. They're not things. They're organizational tools, that help other individuals address and work with groups acting in congregate. To date, outside of Citizen's United, tools and cognitive shortcuts have not been allowed the legal protection of free speech, only the individuals that use those tools and shortcuts. That we have given a imaginary entity non-imaginary rights that actively infringe on the rights of non-imaginary entities is entirely mind boggling.

Corps neither speak nor write. They can't communicate in any method whatsoever. It makes no bloody sense to give free speech protections to something that cannot practice free speech. As we see with terribly clarity, doing so allows individuals to do some frankly terribly shit by hiding behind their imaginary shield.

We should have laws protecting how we deal with people who are working in aggregate toward a particular goal or goals, yes, of course, but calling that group an individual and treating it as an individual citizen is not how you do it by any sane measure.

Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike". You would NOT say "Rover bit Jane, so Rover hired a defense attorney and will be standing trial this Tuesday".

We keep coming back to this issue, and both the Constitution (from a literal reading) and the court case are against you on this one.

Are you arguing that one's ability to sue is what gives the claim legitimacy?

Guess I should hire my dog a lawyer next time angry neighbors complain.

Sentience helps, too. Would you sue a tea kettle for noise pollution, or a boombox, or a really obnoxious MP3 file? Would you file charges against a baseball bat for being an accomplice in breaking your nose? Would you sue a gun for murder (guns kill people, lol)?

Your dog would probably appreciate having a lawyer, though, as well as free speech. After all, if it had such benefits, it would pollute the environment, exploit its workers cats, single handedly takeover the government, and violate the civil rights of people in the third world. Or at least, that's what I've been told would happen.

[Euld]

Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice. 

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.

All your politics are belong to us

[Frumple]

Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike".

Strictly because the latter's shorter than the former and linguistic convention has accepted that speaking in the latter manner is acceptable. The former is actually accurate. The latter is, and only is, a way to avoid having to spell it out quite so explicitly. That doesn't magically make McDonalds or Nike things that exist outside a person's head. It is directly equivalent to me saying "epistemology" instead of "the study of knowledge." Specialized language and not a wit more.

Like I said, to a heavy degree that's basically the crux of it. We've stated that a collective -- which is only a thing in a cognitive sense, and doesn't actually exist beyond that -- is an individual, and somehow deserves some of the rights (but not all of the responsibilities!) of an individual. If a corp, or a union, or whatever, exhibited the same degree of independence that a human does to, say, its lungs, I might be able to get behind the concept of groups as individuals.

But, they don't. Corps are fully controlled by individuals, and explicitly demonstrate the leading and control of individuals. The only times this seems (and only seems) to blur is when we allow those controlling individuals to hide behind the collective mantle of whatever it is they're directing... and allowing that perception -- and exponentially worse, attempting to enshrine it into law -- is causing extremely blatant problems.

I'd put it bluntly. The courts screwed the pooch with this one, and a reading of the constitution that does what you're speaking of is one that seriously needs to be reexamined. Calling things that are blatantly not people, people, isn't something we should be doing. Establishing laws for the recognition and protection of collective action? Yes, we need that. Calling collective action anything but what it is? No. We don't need that.

[EveryZig]

Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice. 

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.

The obvious answer is that is is no coincidence at all. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets of Necro.

Sentience helps, too. Would you sue a tea kettle for noise pollution, or a boombox, or a really obnoxious MP3 file? Would you file charges against a baseball bat for being an accomplice in breaking your nose? Would you sue a gun for murder (guns kill people, lol)?

But a corporation isn't sentient or sapient any more than an is does when there is someone piloting it. (And you say 'the airplane crashed', not 'the pilot of the airplane crashed', even in when the crash happens due to user error.)

[Urist Imiknorris]

Or "the airplane got owned by a bird."

[RedKing]

The whole Chik-Fil-A / Jim Henson thing is getting into Paul Christoforo territory. 

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching people in public relations school these days?