Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:02:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
377 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
Na. You show ME where it's guaranteed they don't!
Remember, enumeration of rights is not necessarily exhaustive.
> 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,
How so? If they mail in their utterances and they get published, it doesn't
matter where they were when they were uttered, as long as they are PUBLISHED
in the US.
> so the protection is not absolute, nor is it
> anywhere explicitly stated to pertain to corporations.
Again, it isn't explicitly stated not to, and that matters more. What is a
corporation anyway? Merely a collection of citizens, ne?
> 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.
How so?
> On the block is the fact that
> Nike is seeking protection for deliberate falsehoods.
The article doesn't say that. My follow up post amended my remarks to say
that I don't feel they have protection against that. If a reasonable person
could easily determine that something was false, it's a deliberate
falsehood, and the laws against fraud and false advertising seem to be
adequate to deal with that without any need to cast aspersions for groups of
citizens acting jointly having the same protection that an individual
citizen does.
> 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.
No, I don't think I'm saying that.
> 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.
But it is possibly negligent behaviour, possibly fraud and almost certainly
false advertising. None of those are protected speech even if uttered by a
citizen.
> > 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.
No, I'd say you have to explain why it isn't. Else you're violating the
right of free association.
> The moment you and
> incorporate, you change the source of the speech from individual citizens to
> an incorporated entity.
Still controlled by citizens freely associating. (and if in a libertarian
society, the citizens get no liability protection for the corporation's actions)
> > 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.
Same as above, neither more or less so.
> Further, regarding large corporations, the
> whole "stockholders deciding" thing isn't a useful control in reality except
> as a crude, blunt instrument.
Who's fault is that?
> > 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.
How so?
> 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?
No it isn't. Asked and answered.
> In fact, if Phillip Morris *did* reveal the truth in such a case, they'd be
> doing their owners a disservice.
Not if not doing so exposed PM to greater negligence in future. Asked and
answered.
> > > 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.
No, YOU see above. (my we're argumentative today aren't we?)
> > > 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.
And to me it IS THE central distinction. Government has a monopoly on the
lawful use of initiated force. That changes everything.
> Here's a thought experiment for you in return:
I like mine better. Much simpler. Much more true to life. Plus (if you are
to believe David K)... free pudding!
> I build an autonomous
What makes it 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.
You mean you form a corporation for the purposes of owning this device? You
don't typically turn machines in legal entities.
> 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.
Why? Isn't this evidence, prima facie, of negligence?
> In the course of time,
> the device concocts
How does it so concoct this? Is it sentient in its own right?
> an elaborate but false claim that ice cream causes
> cancer, and it distributes the information so thoroughly and so convincingly
How?
> 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.
Actually, they were. If you assert ice cream causes cancer, are you not
asserting that ice cream from a particular manufacturer also causes cancer?
> 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.
Why not?
> In this experiment, have I committed an actionable offense?
What if you personally retained ownership rather than having it be owned by
a corporation? If your answer is yes, then it's yes for the corp. If no,
then no for the corp.
> Is the free
> speech of my incorporated device protected? Even in the face of falsehoods,
> as you purport to the be case re: Nike?
I don't believe I purported any such thing.
> 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.
That's not a defense. Use the reasonable man test, if a reasonable man would
know they're false, then to propagate them is deliberate.
> Dave!
++Lar (no pudding for you!)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: *** For the record, I've snipped parts with which I disagree but which I recognize will not yield to discussion by either of us--you're as convinced of your correctness as I am of mine, and never (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
