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 68 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18586667686970 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #671
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 07:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    That about sums it up...
    Yes, it's true that it's absurd to think of toasters and trucks having rights. So don't think it.

    The First Amendment doesn't grant a right to speech - it limits the power of the government to restrict it. It doesn't matter who or what is paying for that speech, it's protected.

  2. #672
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    67,681

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes, it's true that it's absurd to think of toasters and trucks having rights. So don't think it.

    The First Amendment doesn't grant a right to speech - it limits the power of the government to restrict it. It doesn't matter who or what is paying for that speech, it's protected.
    I'm not thinking it, I was simply afraid that you are...

    I think that we all know that the 1st limits the governments power to restrict free speech. This is obvious. We have all agreed to this over and over and over... please stop stating the obvious. What I, and Jingo are stating... is more subtle.

    The fact that you continue stating that non-people (corporations) are entitled to free speech the more I think that you might actually think that toasters and trucks have rights, that is all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I'm sexist and hypocritical, lol:

  3. #673
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    20,953

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I'm not thinking it, I was simply afraid that you are...

    I think that we all know that the 1st limits the governments power to restrict free speech. This is obvious. We have all agreed to this over and over and over... please stop stating the obvious. What I, and Jingo are stating... is more subtle.

    The fact that you continue stating that non-people (corporations) are entitled to free speech the more I think that you might actually think that toasters and trucks have rights, that is all.
    Corporations, by themselves, cannot speak anyway, so whether you say they do or do not have the right too is moot.
    However, a corporation can "speak" through the mouthpiece(s) of its owners, CEO's, public relation's officers, and so on.
    In other words, people.
    A corporation does not have a will of its own, the people who control/run it do.

    My take on the SCOTUS ruling is that, in their 5-4 decision, the 5 who agreed with the decision were saying that to limit the ability for a corporation to "speak" would limit the ability for those who run that corporation (and control it's funds) to make their political positions (as a business) known.

    And, ergo, violates the 1st amendment.

    Which is not to say that I see no merit in the argument that the 1st amendment protects speech, without any regard to its source.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #674
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    67,681

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Corporations, by themselves, cannot speak anyway, so whether you say they do or do not have the right too is moot.
    However, a corporation can "speak" through the mouthpiece(s) of its owners, CEO's, public relation's officers, and so on.
    In other words, people.
    A corporation does not have a will of its own, the people who control/run it do.

    My take on the SCOTUS ruling is that, in their 5-4 decision, the 5 who agreed with the decision were saying that to limit the ability for a corporation to "speak" would limit the ability for those who run that corporation (and control it's funds) to make their political positions (as a business) known.

    And, ergo, violates the 1st amendment.

    Which is not to say that I see no merit in the argument that the 1st amendment protects speech, without any regard to its source.
    Most of us understand and agree with you. Though we do have some here that seem to think that a corporation can speak independently of the people that are actually speaking in that when the people speak, they are absolved of consequences since it was the corporation that "spoke" and the corporation may be sued or punished, but the individual who actually spoke is free and clear since they can hide behind "the corporation".


    A corporation is a concept...

    A corporation is a contract with words written on it...

    A corporation cant speak any more than a toaster or my daughters lemonade stand can...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I'm sexist and hypocritical, lol:

  5. #675
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    20,953

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Most of us understand and agree with you. Though we do have some here that seem to think that a corporation can speak independently of the people that are actually speaking in that when the people speak, they are absolved of consequences since it was the corporation that "spoke" and the corporation may be sued or punished, but the individual who actually spoke is free and clear since they can hide behind "the corporation".
    Well, one would think that, even if no legal consequences were leveled against an individual person, internal corporate consequences would occur, if their actions negatively effected the corporation. Or at least such is how things SHOULD work, in any reasonable corporation. You screw up enough, you get hurt.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #676
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    05-22-18 @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,361

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, one would think that, even if no legal consequences were leveled against an individual person, internal corporate consequences would occur, if their actions negatively effected the corporation. Or at least such is how things SHOULD work, in any reasonable corporation. You screw up enough, you get hurt.
    First, lets assume we are talking about C corporations.
    Aren't you arguing that the investors come together in some sort of "group speech"? The C.E.O. is just an employee with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits regardless of his personal political predisposition- so, if the investors are the primary source of the group speaking, how come they have no vote, no input, on how the group (corporation) speaks?

  7. #677
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    20,953

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    First, lets assume we are talking about C corporations.
    Aren't you arguing that the investors come together in some sort of "group speech"? The C.E.O. is just an employee with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits regardless of his personal political predisposition- so, if the investors are the primary source of the group speaking, how come they have no vote, no input, on how the group (corporation) speaks?
    But they DO have a vote...In a way.
    By investing in that corporation, they are saying "here is some of my money, I expect to have it increase in the long-term."
    In that way, they are also saying "I agree with what methods you use to increase the value of your corporation."
    If they don't agree with the corporation's political positions, they either disagree lightly, but still want to improve their financial situation, or don't have any idea what the corporation actually does.
    Uninformed voters, anyone?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #678
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    05-22-18 @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,361

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    But they DO have a vote...In a way.
    By investing in that corporation, they are saying "here is some of my money, I expect to have it increase in the long-term."
    In that way, they are also saying "I agree with what methods you use to increase the value of your corporation."
    If they don't agree with the corporation's political positions, they either disagree lightly, but still want to improve their financial situation, or don't have any idea what the corporation actually does.
    Uninformed voters, anyone?
    Investors have no control beyond moving their investments which is to say they have no input in the speech of the corporation. None. They are passive at best. They do not come together in a group for the purposes of speech.

  9. #679
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 07:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I'm not thinking it, I was simply afraid that you are...
    I'm not either, so we're all okay. That was close.

    I think that we all know that the 1st limits the governments power to restrict free speech. This is obvious. We have all agreed to this over and over and over... please stop stating the obvious. What I, and Jingo are stating... is more subtle.
    Obvious usually beats subtle.

    The fact that you continue stating that non-people (corporations) are entitled to free speech the more I think that you might actually think that toasters and trucks have rights, that is all.
    But I'm not stating that non-people are entitled to free speech. That's why I have to keep saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. And now I have to say it again. The 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. That means it doesn't matter where the speech comes from - you can't restrict it. If toasters ever learn to talk, they'll have it too.

    The government cannot make a law that says "this speech is outlawed because it comes from ___" or "because it is paid for by _____" or whatever. It just can't do it. What more need be said?

  10. #680
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,936

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    What is the difference between corporations being allowed to fund campaigns, create commercials, etc, and allowing unions, web groups, and damn near the entire media network in the US to do the same thing?

Page 68 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18586667686970 ... 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
  •