Hacker News Reader

Comment by torpid | Hacker News Reader

It's truly baffling to me how the people that lambasted the idea of corporate personhood after Citizens United seem to now be obsessed with defending the so-called constitutional rights of said entities, of all things, to censor speech. When it comes to matters of all things censorship and restricting speech, I've never seen a steonger embrace of discrimination via privatization

View on HN

You’re pointing out a contradiction that isn’t present: the argument against compelled speech does not rest on corporate personhood.

In other words: there is no investment in a corporation having rights added to it as if it were a legal person. The sole interest is that the people within the corporation do not have their rights subtracted by virtue of how they choose to organize.

You can see this in how people actually talk about moderation online: it simply doesn’t matter if it’s a corporation, nonprofit, union, or individual running a service.

Honest question from someone with little context: How does this argument not also apply to Citizen's United, or corporate personhood more generally? Is the argument that compelling a corporation to do something compels the individuals within the organization (infringing on their rights), while not giving an organization a right does not infringe upon the individuals rights (which they can exercise individually instead)?

Yep, pretty much that.

I think a good way to think about it is as a leaky abstraction: for many purposes, it makes sense (and is very convenient) to treat a corporation as a person. It saves us a lot of ink! But that corporate person is not a natural person, so it doesn't have natural rights. Instead, it has only the synthetic rights that are extended to it through law.

People aren't upset with corporate personhood in citizens united. They're upset that it allows endless amounts of money to be pumped into politics, further separating the lower classes from the positions of power.

In any case, the supreme court ruled it. So if they have personhood, they have a right to restrict speech on their own property. Unless, you think, I should be able to go to your property and put up my political sign at will.

You are trying to thread a needle around the contradiction but I don't think it works.

The "endless amount of money" pumped is due to corporate personhood and an expansive definition of free speech rights.

> defending the so-called constitutional rights of said entities, of all things, to censor speech.

This.

I think the problem is that on the whole, most people care more about outcomes than principles. And most people aren't very interested in constitutional issues. So most people find it quite easy to hold political positions that imply advocating two contradictory constitutional principles at the same time.

I include myself, by the way; I'm not pretending that I'm cleverer than everyone else. But at least I'm interested.

I come from a country with no (written) constitution, and I'm interested in constitutional principles. But I'm fearful of what might happen were we to adopt a constitution; basically I don't trust my fellow citizens to be able to think about these issues clearly. Constitution is essentially abstract law, and people find it hard to think in abstractions.

So perhaps it's actually better to think about these issues in terms of outcomes, and rely on judicial precedent based on concrete cases, rather than to try to distill principles from pragmatic judicial goals.

IANAL.

But is anyone really thinking of concrete outcomes when they discuss cases like Citizens United? I've never seen anyone outside the most wonkish circles attempt to discuss the underlying facts of the case, where the FEC argued that it's illegal to release a documentary about a Presidential candidate during the entire primary season.

Yes, I think that should remain illegal. The same is done in other countries globally.

To be fair, the US campaigning season is effectively 50% of the time; 6 months of primaries, six months campaigning, for mid-terms and full-terms (I doubt that's the right term). And terms are 4 years; so campaigning is going on for two years in every four. And that's national. In the USA, banning a documentary because campaigning is going on would be a bit drastic.

Well, it would only apply to candidates campaigning in the current season.

And they would still be able to make the documentary, they would just be subject to contribution limits.

They weren't fully illegal at the time. Citizens United actually got the idea to do it from Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was theatrically released in the small window between primary and general election seasons but advertised and shown at Cannes during the primary. The FEC's policy was based on a standard of "bona fide commercial activity" - filmmakers were covered by the restriction if and only if the FEC didn't think they were trying hard enough to make money.

Of course, like you said earlier, maybe they would have been fully illegal if the US didn't have a written constitution requiring lawmakers to think in terms of principles. It's a hard hypothetical to reason about.

Corporate personhood has nothing to do with either perspective.

People are concerned about money in politics because of corruption and special interests.

People are concerned about unmoderated social media because of extremism, conspiracy theories, misinformation, polarisation and all the impacts that has on society.

That's it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com