6 ms·
Well, I guess it's good that corporations have free speech protections under the First Amendment. I often see it argued here that they shouldn't.
by jonas21 19d ago
Well, I guess it's good that corporations have free speech protections under the First Amendment. I often see it argued here that they shouldn't.
- hn_acc1 19d agoThey arguably have more free speech rights than the average person with citizens united..
- jonas21 19d agoHow so?
- iwontberude 19d agoBecause corps can donate unlimited money to super pacs while regular people have to pay for medical expenses (in addition to inflation, DOGEd government programs, gambling addictions, AI layoffs, etc) that keep them from having a political voice commensurate to institutions and financial whales. Regular people are basically subsidizing the same corporations that are taking away their representation.
- grackasthebig 18d agoMoney affords direct access and reach while the average person gets a queue You and I get an email box often full to communicate with officials over Rich people call and text them
- 1718627440 17d agoYou and me can also walk into their office.
- hn_acc1 13d agoHow many people can afford to take a day off work if they don't have flex hours?
- zugi 18d agoThe legal short-hand saying that "corporations are people" is terrible PR. Non-legal-experts look at that and logically and correctly conclude "no, they're not", and think it's a ridiculous statement. The underlying legal principle is that groups of individuals banding together don't lose their fundamental rights. That applies to unions, non-profits, clubs, churches, political parties, small businesses, and yes, corporations. Courts do allow more government control over "commercial speech" than, say, political speech. But that discriminates based on the type of speech, not the type of speaker.
- jacobr1 17d agoThe main benefit to the fiction is limited liability. Without delegating to the corporation the responsibility for corporate actions would need to be defined as belonging to the owners, or all employees or some other structure where it all points to humans. If meta owes $18bn - I don't owe it - in the strong sense as a legal debt, as a shareholder in my 401k. The value of my ownership stake might go down (or up) but I don't have a shared legal obligation.
- account42 16d ago> The underlying legal principle is that groups of individuals banding together don't lose their fundamental rights. .. but do limit their liabilities. It's not unreasonable to claim that limited liability should come with limited rights.