• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%
  • Total voters
    64
nerv14 said:
The New York Times has freedom of speech to print what they want.

However, if the New York times were to have an article blatantly criticizing Hillary Clinton for instance... then they should not be able to do that.
Click to expand...

...What?

Why not?
 
Harshaw said:
Why will no one answer the question?

The New York Times is a corporation.

If you say the First Amendment applies only to people, does the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Maybe newspapers shouldn't be corporations. There is really no societal good served by letting them be such. From the time of our founding up until just after the Civil War, if a corporation didn't serve a specific social purpose, they weren't chartered. Perhaps newspapers should have to be privately owned.
 
Dav said:
...What?

Why not?
Click to expand...

because campaign contributions should be limited.

If not, then interests that have large amounts of money are able to promote their interests must too strongly.
 
nerv14 said:
because campaign contributions should be limited.

If not, then interests that have large amounts of money are able to promote their interests must too strongly.
Click to expand...

How is criticizing Hillary Clinton a "campaign contribution"?
 
Dav said:
How is criticizing Hillary Clinton a "campaign contribution"?
Click to expand...

it promotes candidates that oppose hillary Clinton. It would be the same if instead they made a movie supporting how great John McCain is.

They all act the same as a campaign contribution, and therefore should be regulated.
 
nerv14 said:
it promotes candidates that oppose hillary Clinton. It would be the same if instead they made a movie supporting how great John McCain is.

They all act the same as a campaign contribution, and therefore should be regulated.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever met a person so openly opposed to free speech.
 
Dezaad said:
Maybe newspapers shouldn't be corporations. There is really no societal good served by letting them be such. From the time of our founding up until just after the Civil War, if a corporation didn't serve a specific social purpose, they weren't chartered. Perhaps newspapers should have to be privately owned.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question, though. They are a corporation.

Does the First Amendment protect them or not?
 
Dav said:
I don't think I've ever met a person so openly opposed to free speech.
Click to expand...

lolol im just direct.


how is my view harmful to America anyway? that is what we need to ask ourselves. i think what i am saying is positive, even if violates some abstract principles :p
 
nerv14 said:
how is my view harmful to America anyway? that is what we need to ask ourselves. i think what i am saying is positive, even if violates some abstract principles :p
Click to expand...

do you really need someone to explain to you the damage done by restrictions on speech?
 
misterman said:
It's none of your business if they agree, or how much they agree. Freedom of speech is not conditioned on how much people agree on something. If I don't agree with a group that speaks on my behalf, I can quit.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is an individual right, so if two people write a letter expressing the same beliefs then they are each expressing their individual rights to free speech.

Your not going to find that with a group of thousands or millions.

misterman said:
No it's not. Rights are not conditioned on whether you are hurt either.
Click to expand...

A group like AARP, as an example, can lobby government to increase benefits for its members at the expense of me.
It is my business, if they lobby for something that violates the core principal of what a republic is.

Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

the makeout hobo said:
Under US law, a corporation has many of the sames rights and responsibilities as a person. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court going back to the Railroad Era. Now personally, I've never quite understood why a corporation, as an entity, should have personhood. Anyone want to explain the logic here?
Click to expand...

They don't retain the full rights of a person.

It was largely created to shield business owners who make decisions that violate the law.
They don't go to jail like an individual would because the corporation can be held liable.
There are of course exceptions.

The free speech for groups nonsense is a side effect.
 
Harshaw said:
Why will no one answer the question?

The New York Times is a corporation.

If you say the First Amendment applies only to people, does the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

The people who write for and own the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press.

Rights are for individuals, not groups.
Groups are not people, they do not have a collective brain, mouth, sexual organ etc.

Groups do not have rights.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people who write for and own the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

And the actors, voiceovers, and PR people who develop ads for corporations enjoy free speech. They're simply being paid by corporations to do what the corporation wants, much like reporters are paid by the NY Times to do what the Times wants.

There is no way to distinguish the two.

Rights are for individuals, not groups.
Groups are not people, they do not have a collective brain, mouth, sexual organ etc.

Groups do not have rights.
Click to expand...

So you would agree that the government could ban the Catholic church, right? I mean, individual Catholics enjoy freedom of religion, but groups don't have rights.

Similarly, corporations, nonprofits, and unions could be banned from contacting Congress or speaking out on issues altogether. The individuals at those organizations might have the right to petition their governments and the right to free speech, but groups don't have rights.
 
RightinNYC said:
And the actors, voiceovers, and PR people who develop ads for corporations enjoy free speech. They're simply being paid by corporations to do what the corporation wants, much like reporters are paid by the NY Times to do what the Times wants.

There is no way to distinguish the two.
Click to expand...

That doesn't fly, the actors etc, are exercising their rights to free speech.
They just happened to be paid for it.

Being paid makes no difference.

RightinNYC said:
So you would agree that the government could ban the Catholic church, right? I mean, individual Catholics enjoy freedom of religion, but groups don't have rights.

Similarly, corporations, nonprofits, and unions could be banned from contacting Congress or speaking out on issues altogether. The individuals at those organizations might have the right to petition their governments and the right to free speech, but groups don't have rights.
Click to expand...

The parishioners own the church collectively but if the church was banned, it could infringe on their individual right to practice freely.

Individuals have a right to petition government.
Groups do not have rights, they are not a person.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people who write for and own the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press.

Rights are for individuals, not groups.
Groups are not people, they do not have a collective brain, mouth, sexual organ etc.

Groups do not have rights.
Click to expand...

What about unsigned editorials coming from the organization itself?

Besides, and advertising by corporation is the same thing. A person wrote it.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

Harry Guerrilla said:
The free speech for groups nonsense is a side effect.
Click to expand...

There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc. It's hardly just a "side effect" of the formation of corporations.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

Harshaw said:
There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:

political parties
charities and other non-profits
schools and universities
think tanks
media outlets

By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
do you really need someone to explain to you the damage done by restrictions on speech?
Click to expand...

I do need to be explained the damage done if the government restricts some very specific vehicles for speech.

It is important to recognize that the helpful restrictions on organizations spreading their view do not stifle what can be said, but where it can be said.


In many nations for instance, campaigns are funded by public money, so organizations with large amounts of money can not unjustly influence the agenda. Instead, policy is influenced on what the people think on a field leveled by monetary means.

If you have any examples at all about how this has transformed to something horrible in a democratic nations, then I would like to hear that. But right now, those types of restrictions only have positive effects.

We would most likely have more third parties if we had those types of regulations.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

misterman said:
Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:

political parties
charities and other non-profits
schools and universities
think tanks
media outlets

By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.
Click to expand...

There is a difference from having free speech, and one of those organizations promoting a certain public policy. They are free to say whatever they want in their organization and can say who they support, but they should not be able to promote a certain issue in an election without some regulations.


You can claim as much as you want that it violates the first amendment, and maybe campaign finance regulation does, but there are still no downsides if you look at the actual effect of many campaign finance policies. If some campaign finance policy only acts in a positive way, then it should be preserved regardless of a certain interpretation of the first amendment.
 
nerv14 said:
It is important to recognize that the helpful restrictions on organizations spreading their view do not stifle what can be said, but where it can be said.
Click to expand...

Classic Doublespeak.

In many nations for instance, campaigns are funded by public money, so organizations with large amounts of money can not unjustly influence the agenda. Instead, policy is influenced on what the people think on a field leveled by monetary means.
Click to expand...

I support public funded campaigns. We have them for presidential elections, coupled with spending limits.

But corporations aren't running for office, nor does this decision have anything to do with corporations giving money to campaigns. It's just about corporations expressing themselves directly.

We would most likely have more third parties if we had those types of regulations.
Click to expand...

No we wouldn't. Two parties are the natural result of a winner-take-all system. A third party can't win unless it displaces one of the first two. Voila - two parties again.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

nerv14 said:
There is a difference from having free speech, and one of those organizations promoting a certain public policy.
Click to expand...

Well, no, there isn't.

They are free to say whatever they want in their organization and can say who they support, but they should not be able to promote a certain issue in an election without some regulations.
Click to expand...

Why not?

You can claim as much as you want that it violates the first amendment, and maybe campaign finance regulation does, but there are still no downsides if you look at the actual effect of many campaign finance policies. If some campaign finance policy only acts in a positive way, then it should be preserved regardless of a certain interpretation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

It's not your place to decide what is positive or not, nor the goverment's. If it violates the First Amendment, it should be struck down, period. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
Click to expand...

I am not sure about actual person hood but under the first amendment we have the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A corporation would technically be an assembly of people much the same way unions,religious groups, NRA and other lobby groups and other groups of people. So therefore the first amendment applies to them as well. This is why I think the real is issues is campaign donations not personhood.

I however do not believe that donating money is speech seeing how speech is verbal and or nonverbal communication(written,typed, sign language and etc) with words(this also means that flag burning is not speech) nor is donating money a form of addressing grievances to the government since money is not communication. I could be wrong but I do not ever remember in history class of any of our founding forefathers saying that donating money to politicians is a form of speech or addressing grievances to the government. Also we should keep in mind our constitutional rights only apply to American citizens,so no foreign government,foreign company/multinational companies should have the right to petition our government for anything. So I do not believe limiting campaign contributions is a violation of the constitution(unless there is a amendment that specifically says there is not limit to campaign contributions ) and if one person is limited in donating money then so should everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Whenever Corporations assume the "responsibilities" of a person, then them having the "rights" of a person should be considered. but not until then.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

misterman said:
Classic Doublespeak.
Click to expand...

Meh

I support public funded campaigns. We have them for presidential elections, coupled with spending limits.
Click to expand...
But doesn't that violate my freedom of speech to donate as much as I want to a certain candidate?

If you support some types of campaign finance regulations, then you can't go hiding behind the first amendment because you are already violating it.

But corporations aren't running for office, nor does this decision have anything to do with corporations giving money to campaigns. It's just about corporations expressing themselves directly.
Click to expand...
donating to a campaign and campaigning for a politician function as the same thing, so they should be treated the same.
No we wouldn't. Two parties are the natural result of a winner-take-all system. A third party can't win unless it displaces one of the first two. Voila - two parties again.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess I agree with that though.
misterman said:
Well, no, there isn't.



Why not?



It's not your place to decide what is positive or not, nor the goverment's. If it violates the First Amendment, it should be struck down, period. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It sounded like that you are also ok with violating my right to donate to who i want. So you are also violating the first amendment
 
"A true Democracy will only work, until it is discovered that votes can be bought"--Ole Tom Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom