Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:21:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
275 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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, 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.
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 court. US citizens outside of the US are not
protected by the 1st Amendment, so the protection is not absolute, nor is it
anywhere explicitly stated to pertain to corporations.
It needs to be demonstrated that corporations are protected under the 1st
Amendment, and it must be shown that corporations are not slaves under the
13th, since they are owned entities, and then it must be shown why
corporations are not afforded the right to vote (various amendments).
> 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.
But right off the bat this blurs the issue. On the block is the fact that
Nike is seeking protection for deliberate falsehoods. What you're saying,
in effect, is that a corporation is Consitutionally-authorized to run
multi-million dollar campaigns proclaiming the health benefits of, say,
cigarettes, and no one can act against them. It's not slander, since no
person/entity is being spoken of falsely, nor is it libel, since no
falsehoods are being written about a person/entity.
> 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.
I disagree--if the speech is coming from the corporation, then you need to
explain again why a corporation is a protected entity. The moment you and
incorporate, you change the source of the speech from individual citizens to
an incorporated entity.
> 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.
Same as above, but moreso. Further, regarding large corporations, the
whole "stockholders deciding" thing isn't a useful control in reality except
as a crude, blunt instrument.
> A corporation need not have independent existance since its actions are at
> the direction of its owners.
Need not? I'd say it *can not,* and therefore is subordinate to free
citizens and therefore is afforded lesser protections to its speech.
Employees of the corporation (speaking/acting on behalf of the corporation)
are by definition subordinate to the corporation in turn.
> 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.
By extension, then, Phillip Morris is within its rights to lie about
deliberately increasing the addictiveness of nicotine in its products, since
this is not a falsehood, written or spoken, about any individual or entity?
In fact, if Phillip Morris *did* reveal the truth in such a case, they'd be
doing their 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.
I disagree. 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.
Why are they different? I mean, aside from the public/private thing,
which to me doesn't seem central.
Here's a thought experiment for you in return:
I build an autonomous device that churns out sentence after sentence of
information, but unknown to me the device develops a flaw and starts
generating only false information (like Fox News, for example). Just for
giggles let's suppose that I form this device into a corporation. I have no
control over the content of the information, but I allow the device to run
indefinitely and to feed its output to the Internet. In the course of time,
the device concocts an elaborate but false claim that ice cream causes
cancer, and it distributes the information so thoroughly and so convincingly
that every ice cream manufacturer in the country goes bankrupt as a result
of consumer fear. Have I committed slander or libel? Of course not--*I*
didn't distribute the information. Has my device committed libel or
slander? I don't think so, since no claims were made about any particular
entity or person. Further, it would have to be demonstrated that the
statements of my device were materially responsible for the loss of profit,
which I don't believe could be done.
In this experiment, have I committed an actionable offense? Is the free
speech of my incorporated device protected? Even in the face of falsehoods,
as you purport to the be case re: Nike? The fact that they weren't
deliberate is especially relevant, because corporations, confronted by their
falsehoods, would certainly claim that they hadn't committed deliberate
falsehoods, either.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I think it could, in the same way 'class action' lawsuits work-- "Excuse me witness A--why did you stop buying ice cream?" "Why it causes cancer, of course!" "where did you hear that?" "From this website that explicitly said it (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Na. You show ME where it's guaranteed they don't! Remember, enumeration of rights is not necessarily exhaustive. (...) How so? If they mail in their utterances and they get published, it doesn't matter where they were when they were uttered, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well, maybe not. (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
