View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 59 of 71 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #581
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
    No, it's an argument for not allowing corporations to have free speech.

  2. #582
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    We were not discussing religion. YOU brought that up... as a dodge tactic.
    No, as proof that the Constitution protects more than individual rights.

    The freedoms belong to the PEOPLE ... NOT THE ORGANIZATIONS.
    Wrong.

    Churches and other religious groups have freedom of religion. Newspapers (most of them corporations too!) have freedom of the press. Not just the individuals involved in those groups, the groups themselves. To say otherwise is absurd. And corporations also have rights, the courts have said so over and over for 100+ years.

    Clearly groups can have constitutional rights. If you want to argue that speech is only an individual right, you have to do more than just say it loudly over and over. You need an actual argument.

  3. #583
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    No, it's an argument for not allowing corporations to have free speech.
    Or anyone else.

    The argument basically says that people are too stupid to handle advertising. We can't be trusted with it. We need the government to protect us from it.

    Why couldn't the government turn around and then say we should keep certain political groups, or parties, from advertising? What's the difference?

  4. #584
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, they are groups. Many are also corporations too!
    Please don't force me to go back through the thread looking for that post where you acknowledged that the press and religion are ideas.

    Yes. So the founding fathers clearly saw that freedom was no conditional on acting only as an individual.
    In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.

  5. #585
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Please don't force me to go back through the thread looking for that post where you acknowledged that the press and religion are ideas.
    I don't recall that, maybe you misunderstood me. But it doesn't matter. Religious groups and news media companies are groups, and they have constitutional rights. That's what I'm saying now.

    In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.
    So it is possible for a group to have rights.

    So you can't just assume that a right is only for an individual, since the constitution does recognize group rights too. Groups were contemplated as having rights right there in the same amendment, and there is no reason to think they can't have the right of speech. Groups even have rights to written speech (the press).

    The First Amendment clearly states that there will be no laws restricting speech.

    Period.

  6. #586
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Religion and the Press aren't groups either, they are ideals. "We the People" wanted those ideals protected so that the government could not destroy or control them. You are also conflating the different forms of business ownership. An LLC is not the same as being an S Corp or plainly Incorporated etc.

    But you're on the right track!
    I know there are different sorts of incorporation, but all of them limit liability for those who invest and operate them.

  7. #587
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes. Where did they say literally that money = speech?
    Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Overrule Buckley v. Valeo. Money Does Not Equal Speech

    Of course it's the government - who else is going to restrict speech? This decision overturned a law passed by the government that restricted corporate speech. You don't get that?
    Oh, I get it, I simply disagree based on the Constitution. You agree based on judicial activism. But I notice you did not quote me as I asked. See, I don't believe the government is or was restricting free speech because corporations don't qualify as persons.

  8. #588
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Didn't see these coming.

    Yes, there are in some limited circumstances. And corporations are subject to those too. They can be sued for libel for instance.
    Right, but they can never lose more than they are worth.
    But there are no conditions whatsoever on political speech.
    And the problem with this really comes down to equating money with speech. As I see it, the whole point of the First Amendment is to create greater equality among the people in terms of political power by making sure that one powerful group cannot make another less-powerful group shut up. This ruling allows some people to magnify their power to speak out of all proportion with others. And they'll do this not to further the commonweal but to enhance their own profitability.

    Monied interests have always been able to buy politicians. This ruling furthers the ability to fool others into voting for those purchased pols.
    Doesn't matter if you think it's a bad idea. It's not for you to decide. The Constitution says no.
    Obviously, I disagree. Fortunately, we're allowed to criticize the SCOTUS and suggest they got it wrong.
    That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
    Actually, it's an arguement for restricting the speech of those rich and powerful enough to drown out everyone else, regardless of the issue.

  9. #589
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, as proof that the Constitution protects more than individual rights.



    Wrong.

    Churches and other religious groups have freedom of religion. Newspapers (most of them corporations too!) have freedom of the press. Not just the individuals involved in those groups, the groups themselves. To say otherwise is absurd. And corporations also have rights, the courts have said so over and over for 100+ years.

    Clearly groups can have constitutional rights. If you want to argue that speech is only an individual right, you have to do more than just say it loudly over and over. You need an actual argument.
    You continually say this without any proof. Or at least your proof being a negative. The 1st amendment isn't protecting the Press as a corporation but as an ideal, "the free press". Some day you'll get it.

  10. #590
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Or anyone else.

    The argument basically says that people are too stupid to handle advertising. We can't be trusted with it. We need the government to protect us from it.
    Again you make a strawman argument. Running an ad for toothpaste (a product the company makes or markets) is very different than running an ad that says something political.

    Why couldn't the government turn around and then say we should keep certain political groups, or parties, from advertising? What's the difference?
    This is a good point but, the government already does limit political speech from said groups and parties. BTW, political groups are simply people who are politically minded the same. I don't think they should have any additional free speech rights than they already possess as citizens. Political parties are, well, political parties. We the people make an exception for them so that we can understand their candidates and platform so that we can make an educated choice on where to place our vote. This is dealing with the body politic directly as opposed to a corporation that wants to run a political ad.

Page 59 of 71 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •