Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:08:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
255 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/scotus.free.speech.ap/index.html
>
> I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know,
Well, maybe not.
> but I don't
> accept that corporations are citizens protected under the first amendment.
They don't themselves have to be citizens for their actions to be protected.
Engage in this thought experiment with me.
Suppose I take out an ad in the paper that says "Hop Frog sometimes posts
mean things in lugnet.off-topic.debate, and from time to time acts in a way
that baits others into responding rashly".
That's protected speech, ne? Subject only to civil suits regarding
slander/libel, I certainly can post that ad if I want. And since it's true,
we're pretty safe on that score too.
Now suppose you decide that's a pretty good ad, and email me saying you want
to pay 1/2 the cost because you happen to agree. Still protected speech.
What if we incorporate for the express purpose of running more of these ads?
Still protected speech.
What if we issue stock and go public? Still protected speech. Now it's
subject to the stockholders deciding they don't want us running ads but it's
still the stockholders driving.
A corporation need not have independent existance since its actions are at
the direction of its owners.
Nike is within is rights to run ads to influence public opinion as long as
they are not slanderous or libelous. In fact, in this case, NOT doing so is
doing its owners a disservice.
> Ditto any corporate executive or agent speaking on behalf of the
> corporation; the speech of *the person* is protected, but not when that
> person is acting as an arm of the company.
No. See above.
> To me it's very much the same as when Dubya invokes God in every speech.
> George W. Bush is free to worship and believe as he sees fit, but as *the
> president* his individual rights are subordinate to the limitations of his
> office.
You are correct that he's subordinate to the limitations of office but
government and corporations are different legal animals and your connection
is invalid, in my view.
>
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Note that the cited article doesn't say what exactly the original suit is about, exactly. If Nike was lying about conditions in factories, there may well be grounds for a libel suit there if you can just find the party libeled. Or a fraudulent (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Wait a minute--show me where in the Constitution it is guaranteed that corporations have free speech. I'm not talking about some nebulous, fantasy market-of-ideas, but rather the actual Constitution, since that's what's being discussed in the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Corporations often run self-serving ads. Mobil use to have a regular paid ad in the Los Angeles Times where it spun things to it's own advantage. I stopped going to Mobil stations because they got pretty thick for a while. And I think that is (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Free Speech, again
|
| (URL) I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know, but I don't accept that corporations are citizens protected under the first amendment. Ditto any corporate executive or agent speaking on behalf of the corporation; the speech of *the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
