Why on earth would we afford any sort of attorney-client privilege to a business entity? Maybe it's time to have another talk about what exactly the public is getting from this limited liability thing.
Attorney-Client privilege goes to asking your Attorney about how narrow the responses can be, and still be legal.
Sort-of, the underlying question is "why did we allow corporate entities to become legal 'persons' in the first place" ?
I am not a lawyer. Find a lawyer to tear this line of reasoning apart, it is probably a low-bar goal.
The point is: why? Corporate entities and individuals follow the same rules because we (read: societies, governments, parliaments) decided that would be the case. But is that the best outcome? Should we revisit that decision?
> Sort-of, the underlying question is "why did we allow corporate entities to become legal 'persons' in the first place" ?
as a child, I understood "corporation" to mean "town council" and entirely wanted the products, which tended to public utility functions. I didn't actually understand corporate in any other sense for years.
Largely, Because it makes it easier to figure out whom to sue if someone is upset at them, and who should sue if they are upset at someone.
Maybe the world would be a better place if companies (and government departments) couldn't protect communications with legal counsel?
I haven't put in enough thought to have a coherent position, but the argument for the current arrangements seem to boil down to "because that is how it always was". Maybe corporate personhood brought along the rights of human personhood and maybe that is a good thing, but it seems to have just happened by default. Maybe we should debate if attorney client privilege is a privilege of clients, or of humans?
That policy goal applies equally well for both individuals and corporations.
It is not some handout to corporations.
Why are individuals stripped of their rights when they congregate together towards a common purpose?
It's a legal and financial instrument to control other people's money with minimal accountability or oversight.
Take this situation, nobody is going to poll Google employees and ask if they would prefer if Google waived attorney client privilege in this manner and act accordingly.
It's not just a group of folks making decisions, it's a structure for a small group of folks to manage the asset and labor of others with minimal oversight.
Instead, there are other underlying reasons for why laws exist, and it is not because of some silly argument such as "Well, this is what the the definition of a word is, therefore we are stuck and can't do anything about it!".
And other people are questioning what these other underlying reasons are.
The same reason we do to any other person, juridical or natural. Why would we create a special exception?
It does.
> Government isn't a person.
Legally, it is. And has been longer than business entities have been.
Back what up? That government entities have juridical personhood? Sure, see U.S. v. … well, anyone, actually: being able to be a party to lawsuit (except being the defendant in an in rem suit like civil forfeiture) requires legal personhood.
> especially when the constitution explicitly mentions government for example the 1st amendment
How does the reference to Congress in the first Amendment have any bearing on anything being discussed?