Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:33:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
429 times
|
| |
|
|
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 the twain shall meet. I
anticipate a little jab from you like "yah, but *I'm* actually right," but
I'll overlook it if you'd care to indulge yourself.
If I've snipped any material point with which I disagree, I have noted it
inline.
***
> > 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.
The preamble does sort of start out with "We the People" rather than "We
the People and assorted entities," so that's one place that corporations are
conspicuously absent.
Additionally, you've generally come across as an intent-of-the-founders
type, so it doesn't seem consistent to infer that the founders really meant
the constitution to apply to corporations unless extent works support that
claim.
> > 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.
Imprecise phrasing on my part. I meant actual speech by US citizens
spoken in other countries.
But re: publishing--do they need to be published in the US or simply
distributed? That's a new wrinkle to me.
> > 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?
Ne. What the heck is "ne" anyway? Are you reverting to pre-Norman English?
Anyway, a corporation is a legal entity separate from the owners, rather
than the simple congregation of those people.
> > 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.
See? There we go again, replying to each other's incomplete postings...
> > 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.
Prior to your amended post, that's how your point came across. However, I
withdraw this objection.
> > 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.
My understanding is that fraud involves the deliberate action of one party
to deceive a second party with intent to cause loss to the second party.
What I've suggested instead affects a third party separate from the first
and second party--is fraud still the correct term in that case?
> > 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.
See above. The corporation is not a group of freely associated
individuals; it's a legal entity separate from those individuals.
> > 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)
Let's stick with the US, though. As above, you're mischaracterizing a
corporation as a simple association. In fact, it's a legal entity, rather
than an association, which is NOT a legal entity but is simply a group
assembled for a common purpose but which is not separate from the assembled
people.
> > 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?
The majority stockholder, usually. What's your point?
> > 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.
As mentioned above, I withdraw that objection.
> > > > 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?)
Unless you'd like me to start anticipating posts you've not yet posted
(which I can often but not always do, since they're
straight-down-the-pipe-Libertarian-orthodoxy), could you tone down the
snippiness a little? We're both adults here.
> > Why are [corporations and the US govt ]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.
Which initiation of force are you talking about? Do you mean the fact
that you will be incarcerated or fined if you break laws? I'm afraid that's
simple contract enforcement, which Libertarianism permits. Moreover, your
continued presence in the US is your continued endorsement of the social
contract implied thereby. You're probably revving up an "asked and
answered" or "ploughed ground alert" rejoinder, but the point has hardly
been resolved in your favor, if at all.
> ++Lar (no pudding for you!)
See my LUGNET page--I've had enough pudding, thanks.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| Oh heck, I snipped most of it without regard to whether I agreed with it or not... (...) No they aren't. At least not always. AM I THAT predictable? I'm not a number (in a platform plank somewhere), I'm a free man! But maybe I could make an (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
