• 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
No, it means THOSE "groups" (which aren't groups but ideas as you well noted in this very thread)

No, they are groups. Many are also corporations too!

are protected by the first amendment. I truly don't understand how you can continually dismiss this.

Yes. So the founding fathers clearly saw that freedom was no conditional on acting only as an individual.
 
Yeah, do you need me to provide the source?

Yes. Where did they say literally that money = speech?

Please quote where I said that. Nothing in what you quoted and then responded to has the word government nor implies it, yet you created a statement that I didn't say.

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?
 
Says 100+ years of detailed caselaw.

Says you ... with no proof.

No, YOU brought up Constitional rights. Freedom of religion is one of those. YOU are evading.

We were not discussing religion. YOU brought that up... as a dodge tactic.


And your views clearly aren't reflected in reality.

Ad hom attacks are not required.

So churches don't have freedom of religion, only people? And newspapers don't have freedom of speech, only people? And the government could confiscate corporate property without compensation?

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

You dodged these questions once, you'll do it again.

The only person dodging here is you.
 
So, in your universe stockholders are what, robots, or dogs?
Duuuhhhh, isn't dey da ownerz?[/sarcasm]

In a free market, no one has "control" over the economy.

We should get back to being free.
Oh you must mean laissez faire economics. Please name one country that has such? If it's so great then surely some other nation must be using that ideal... I'll wait.

Government control of the economy has been proven, 100% of every case in history, to suck. Right now the Messiah has control of the economy, and his ignorant ass doesn't blink at the notion of 1500 billion dollar deficits.
No, corporate control of the government is the problem. There is a tug-o-war going on between the "people" and the "corporate interests" which leads to half-assed or completely stupid legislation. This is because the politicians have to try and please both in order to get and stay elected. They should only be trying to please "the people".

Bla bla bla.
That is basically your argument.

Too bad for you, "Reaganomics" didn't fail.
:spin:

We are living it. It's a proven failure.
 
What legal responsibilities come with freedom of speech? What exactly are you legally required to do in order to have it? If you don't live up to those responsibilities, can your freedom of speech be taken away too?
Guy in crowded movie theater yelling FIRE. Anything else you need proven?

EDIT: disregard... I just read the Rassales' response.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Then we are back to you not really understanding the Constitution. "Religion" and "the Press" are ideas.

So it is possible for a group to have rights.
Currently yes. I'm saying it is wrong though.

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).
Again you are misinterpreting, not only the Constitution but the 1st amendment. "religion" and "the press" are ideas.

If you worked for the NYT and someone asked who you worked for, would you say "I work for the press" or would you say "I work for the NYT"?

If they asked you what industry you worked in would you say "the press" (or today we would probably say the media) or would you say "the NYT"?

Can you see the difference? One is an idea the other is a corporation.
The First Amendment clearly states that there will be no laws restricting speech.

Period.
For people, the press and religion. Nothing else is listed, period.
 
Then we are back to you not really understanding the Constitution. "Religion" and "the Press" are ideas.

But religious and press groups have those freedoms.

If you worked for the NYT and someone asked who you worked for, would you say "I work for the press" or would you say "I work for the NYT"?

Both.

If they asked you what industry you worked in would you say "the press" (or today we would probably say the media) or would you say "the NYT"?

Both.

Can you see the difference? One is an idea the other is a corporation.

If you said " does the NYT have freedom of the press" would you say no?

Does that mean the government could shut down the NYT?

For people, the press and religion. Nothing else is listed, period.

The language is very clear - no restrictions on speech. Period.
 
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.

But that's what we're talking about - running political ads!

This is a good point but, the government already does limit political speech from said groups and parties.

Whoa there! No it doesn't.

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.

Right. Same goes for corporations. No additional rights, just the same.

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.

We make an exception? Where is this exception in the Constitution?

If corporations or groups have no rights because they aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, how can parties have them? They aren't mentioned either.

This is dealing with the body politic directly as opposed to a corporation that wants to run a political ad.

Point to the legal or constitutional principle that says there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
OK, well you're just being obtuse so I see no reason to try to educate you. You skip all the things you get nailed on like the money=speech thing, etc., so you're not really interested in honest debate on this subject any more.
 
OK, well you're just being obtuse so I see no reason to try to educate you. You skip all the things you get nailed on like the money=speech thing, etc., so you're not really interested in honest debate on this subject any more.

I think I've been one of the most honest, straightforward, informed people on this thread.

I invited you to show me where the court said that money = speech, so you could "nail" me on it. I'm still waiting.

Also waiting for you to tell me what law or section of the constitution says that "we the people" made an exception to normal constitutional rights by excluding corporations.
 
Last edited:
Also waiting for you to tell me what law or section of the constitution says that "we the people" made an exception to normal constitutional rights by excluding corporations.
It doesn't have to say it--the fact that it never mentions corporations should be enough. Conservatives regularly insist that the Constitution be read strictly, and they chastise people on the left for reading in to that document meanings that don't appear. The Court had done precisely this in the most recent case.

"Normal constitutional rights" are not granted to corporations--mostly because corporations didn't exist at the time it was written. No one anticipated the growth of corporations. "Combinations" (the term commonly used then) were considered dubious and even dangerous at the time. There's no reason to assume that where the Constitution says "persons" it also means "combinations of persons." That's inventing out of whole cloth.
 
It doesn't have to say it--the fact that it never mentions corporations should be enough.

Well, no, that's not enough - especially since it doesn't really leave any room for interepretation in that regard. It simply says Congress shall make NO law...abridging freedom of speech.

But my question was aimed at Jingo's claim that "we the people" had decided to exclude corporations from having rights. I asked where that was stated anywhere in law.

Conservatives regularly insist that the Constitution be read strictly, and they chastise people on the left for reading in to that document meanings that don't appear. The Court had done precisely this in the most recent case.

No, you're the one reading into it. You're reading an exception to the words "NO LAW."

"Normal constitutional rights" are not granted to corporations--mostly because corporations didn't exist at the time it was written.

This is false. Corporations have many constitutional rights, as the courts have held for over a century.

No one anticipated the growth of corporations. "Combinations" (the term commonly used then) were considered dubious and even dangerous at the time. There's no reason to assume that where the Constitution says "persons" it also means "combinations of persons." That's inventing out of whole cloth.

No it's not. You wouldn't say a combination of persons in the form of a newspaper (incorporated most likely) or a church or other religious group has no constitutional rights (the press and religion respectively) would you? Or political parties?

There is no reason to think the Founding Fathers thought that groups of people, in whatever legal form, would somehow lose their rights because they join together as a group. Just the opposite.
 
Well, no, that's not enough - especially since it doesn't really leave any room for interepretation in that regard. It simply says Congress shall make NO law...abridging freedom of speech.
You have a point, though I would still argue that corporations have morphed into a shape and status that would leave any 18th century lawmaker appalled.
But my question was aimed at Jingo's claim that "we the people" had decided to exclude corporations from having rights. I asked where that was stated anywhere in law.
It's an interesting question, but let's start with the fact that rights are not granted by law. They are granted by the Constitution, which does not mention the word "corporation."
No, you're the one reading into it. You're reading an exception to the words "NO LAW."
You're right. I would argue this case is not so much about speech but about how money can be used to further speech. The Founders lived in a world where the ability to speak was not differentiated by wealth nearly so much as it is today. The mass media have complicated the question of speech well beyond the imagination of our founders. We've done the best we can with it, but I'd say we've made some errors. This is one.
This is false. Corporations have many constitutional rights, as the courts have held for over a century.
Really? What rights do they have? Which rights are they denied? Corporations exist in the forms prescribed by law and are completely the spawn of law. It's my opinion that they have grown to an inconvenient shape and should be reigned in. The corporation should be our servant but it has become our master.
No it's not. You wouldn't say a combination of persons in the form of a newspaper (incorporated most likely) or a church or other religious group has no constitutional rights (the press and religion respectively) would you? Or political parties?
I'd say none of those things has rights, though the individuals within them do.

There is no reason to think the Founding Fathers thought that groups of people, in whatever legal form, would somehow lose their rights because they join together as a group. Just the opposite.
How have the anti-corporate arguments here suggested that any individual lose his/her rights? I just don't think that individuals should have INCREASED political rights through their participation in combinations.
 
It's an interesting question, but let's start with the fact that rights are not granted by law. They are granted by the Constitution, which does not mention the word "corporation."

The First Amendment doesn't mention people either! Except for the right of the people to peacably assemble. (Presumably forming a group.)

You're right. I would argue this case is not so much about speech but about how money can be used to further speech. The Founders lived in a world where the ability to speak was not differentiated by wealth nearly so much as it is today. The mass media have complicated the question of speech well beyond the imagination of our founders. We've done the best we can with it, but I'd say we've made some errors. This is one.

I don't think they would think that the solution to that is simply cutting off the freedom of speech of people or entities we think have too much though.


Really? What rights do they have? Which rights are they denied?

There is a long list. I thought I bookmarked a link. I'll get back to you.

Think about it though - what if they had no rights? Could the government seize them without compensation? Search their records without a warrant?

The corporation should be our servant but it has become our master.

Now that's some serious hyperbole.

I'd say none of those things has rights, though the individuals within them do.

Think about that again. A newspaper has no freedom of the press, only the reporters? Does that make any sense at all? The government could shut down a newspaper, saying the reporters can just write their stories with a pen and paper and make carbon copies? A church has no freedom of religion, so the government could ban the Roman Catholic Church, but as long as catholics can worship at home it's perfectly okay? Really?
 
But religious and press groups have those freedoms.

Nope, it is the individuals within that group that has the right, and their right is the idea to practice any religion they want without fear of persecution.
 
Back
Top Bottom