Every Democrat in the Senate Against Free Speech

[Cow Poke]

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech

[Leonhard]

I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.

[Cow Poke]

I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.

I have been a company. In fact, I have been no less than 7 companies. I'm a legal person.

[Leonhard]

I have been a company. In fact, I have been no less than 7 companies. I'm a legal person.

Is your house also a person? Are you a house?

[Cow Poke]

Is your house also a person? Are you a house?

I am not. And I am no longer a company. But I was. A company, that is. Not a house.

[Raphael]

I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.

Why? It's a common thing in many countries.

[Cow Poke]

Why? It's a common thing in many countries.

Yes, in the States, you can incorporate, or not... you can be a company by virtue of a DBA (Doing Business As) or go for the full fledged incorporation. I have always just done the DBA thing, which makes me a legitimate company. Though, I don't think I'm ... RATS!!!! Yes, I'm still a company!

[Leonhard]

I am not. And I am no longer a company. But I was. A company, that is. Not a house.

Eh, still not sure the company counts as being identical with me. Seems rather that a company is a business you start, and so can be subject to a lot of regulation. It describes something you are doing, an activity you're undertaking in the marketplace.

We don't have absolute free speech. We've talked about this on the forum before. Sometimes the state has a vested interested in legislating what can and can't be said by individuals, or by companies. For instance, it was recently tried by a libertarian group to argue that the state legislating what counts as practicing medicine is an attack on freedom of speech. It failed in the first court they tried it though they're taking it all the way to the supreme court.

Let's say that they have their way: A company is a human and can say almost pretty much whatever it wants. After that nobody needs a license to practice medicine, anyone can hang up a diploma from any school and claim expertise in any field without any restriction. It would be a disaster on the American economy.

Clearly, a company is subject to more restrictions on what it can say than an individual human is.

That being said I don't know where I stand on companies being allowed unlimited and anonymous lobbying power. That seems like a very dangerous shift of power away from the people towards individuals.

[Leonhard]

A dangerous shift of power away from the people, but I don't know if I am against it.

[Cow Poke]

Eh, still not sure the company counts as being identical with me. Seems rather that a company is a business you start, and so can be subject to a lot of regulation. It describes something you are doing, an activity you're undertaking in the marketplace.

We don't have absolute free speech. We've talked about this on the forum before. Sometimes the state has a vested interested in legislating what can and can't be said by individuals, or by companies. For instance, it was recently tried by a libertarian group to argue that the state legislating what counts as practicing medicine is an attack on freedom of speech. It failed in the first court they tried it though they're taking it all the way to the supreme court.

Let's say that they have their way: A company is a human and can say almost pretty much whatever it wants. After that nobody needs a license to practice medicine, anyone can hang up a diploma from any school and claim expertise in any field without any restriction. It would be a disaster on the American economy.

Clearly, a company is subject to more restrictions on what it can say than an individual human is.

That being said I don't know where I stand on companies being allowed unlimited and anonymous lobbying power. That seems like a very dangerous shift of power away from the people towards individuals.

I think, perhaps, you're focusing to much on "the company is a person" aspect. We're talking about free speech regarding the ballot box - not deregulation of the medical field.
It's referring to the freedom of a company (made up of one or more persons) to be able to express their opinion without undue restriction.

The 'company' would still be prohibited from falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but would retain the same rights to free speech as any other person.

And maybe there's a distinction between "lobbying power" and "free speech" in the election process. I'm not thrilled at all about the terrible abuses in lobbying Congress, for example.

[Leonhard]

I think, perhaps, you're focusing to much on "the company is a person" aspect. We're talking about free speech regarding the ballot box - not deregulation of the medical field.
It's referring to the freedom of a company (made up of one or more persons) to be able to express their opinion without undue restriction.

The 'company' would still be prohibited from falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but would retain the same rights to free speech as any other person.

And maybe there's a distinction between "lobbying power" and "free speech" in the election process. I'm not thrilled at all about the terrible abuses in lobbying Congress, for example.

I'm also not sure how you'd regulate it either. Big business and politicians find all sorts of ways to hand out vacations, restaurant visits, favors and so forth without it being easy to trace.

As for Google being able to declare which president they support I don't mind that.

[Cow Poke]

I'm also not sure how you'd regulate it either. Big business and politicians find all sorts of ways to hand out vacations, restaurant visits, favors and so forth without it being easy to trace.

The "walkin around money" in many minority districts was legend --- politicians would pay for a new roof for a church, or build a playground, or whatever if the church (or other entity) would allow them the platform.

As for Google being able to declare which president they support I don't mind that.

If they PLAYED FAIR!

I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.

[Teallaura]

I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.

Okay, so, to a point, do I - how now do you deal with aggregate speech?

[Teallaura]

Eh, still not sure the company counts as being identical with me. Seems rather that a company is a business you start, and so can be subject to a lot of regulation. It describes something you are doing, an activity you're undertaking in the marketplace.

We don't have absolute free speech. We've talked about this on the forum before. Sometimes the state has a vested interested in legislating what can and can't be said by individuals, or by companies. For instance, it was recently tried by a libertarian group to argue that the state legislating what counts as practicing medicine is an attack on freedom of speech. It failed in the first court they tried it though they're taking it all the way to the supreme court.

Let's say that they have their way: A company is a human and can say almost pretty much whatever it wants. After that nobody needs a license to practice medicine, anyone can hang up a diploma from any school and claim expertise in any field without any restriction. It would be a disaster on the American economy.

Clearly, a company is subject to more restrictions on what it can say than an individual human is.

That being said I don't know where I stand on companies being allowed unlimited and anonymous lobbying power. That seems like a very dangerous shift of power away from the people towards individuals.

Er, Leo - a company that isn't incorporated dies with its owner (yeah, the kids can take up the mantle but in a real sense the original company as a legal entity is gone). A corporation does not. They are very different legal entities - which is where the person idea comes from.

[Teallaura]

The "walkin around money" in many minority districts was legend --- politicians would pay for a new roof for a church, or build a playground, or whatever if the church (or other entity) would allow them the platform.



If they PLAYED FAIR!

I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.

Money is not the issue with Google - they have influence that does not cost them any money at all.