Comment by Gunax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gunax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well corporations aren't people, but they are made of people.

The new York times is some sort of corporation, so does it not get free speech? How about ycombinator? How about NPR?

I think NPR's coverage was lacking in subtlety. They barely mention what the case was actually about, which was whether the government had the right to restrict the release of a documentary.

It is difficult for me to consider something as profoundly anti-1A as the government stepping in and saying 'No, you cannot publish that documentary'.

I know there is another side to this. And I hate to be so harsh, but I think the media has done a very poor job of explaining the implications of the issue.

Let's consider for a moment what it would mean for corporations to not have free speech.

First, it would mean that we would need some sort of government department to determine what speech is permitted and which isn't. This might initially seem obvious (political vs non-political), but how could one draw that distinction? Are Michael Moore movies 'political'? How about a movie with strong environmentalist or anti-war themes? It starts to get hazy very quickly. So we will need some legal guidelines specifying what is allowed and what is not, as well as a department to watch and read publications to ensure they follow the guidelines.

Then, we will need to determine which corporations are going to be regulated, and it what ways. It certainly seems evil for an Exxon or Microsoft to start publishing stances that might benefit themselves. So does that mean that we need to regulate the news that comes out of MSNBC (owned by Comcast) or the movies made by Sony pictures? It starts to seem very dystopian.

And what about books? So I can self-publish a book, since that's just me. But if I decide to use a publisher, is the content of my book now regulated? That seems like an arbitrary distinction. If I publish a zine, and it gets popular, maybe I want to hire some employees. Does this mean I cannot incorporate to make my taxes simpler and to separate my personal liabilities from my business liabilities? That seems like an arbitrary distinction based on tax law, and has little bearing on the political function of my zine.

Etc. etc. Hopefully this helpa you understand why this isn't such a straightforward issue.

Absolutley not! The newyorktimes does not get free speech but it does get freedom of the press because it is a press.

> Let's consider for a moment what it would mean for corporations to not have free speech.

Let's not! You don't get to change a contract because you don't like what it could mean. Take it up with your congressman and get a constitutional amemdment passed if you don't like it.

> First, it would mean that we would need some sort of government department to determine what speech is permitted and which isn't.

You mean like the courts??

> Then, we will need to determine which corporations are going to be regulated, and it what ways.

Easy. All of them. In any way the government sees fit. Because their incorporation is not a social club but a legal entity that engages in commerce. And commerce is clearly and plainly defined as regulated by the government. The legal construct of a corporation itself only exists because they are regulated without any rights. That's why you can shield yourself from many legal responsibilities by setting up a corporation (even anonymously in some states), because its not a human with human legal accountability. If not so then when a corporate decision kills people, everyone in the corporation should be thrown in jail. You can't have it treated as a person but only when it is convenient to line up your pockets. Which is what is happening now. Decisions made by people acting as officers of a corporation are not protected by any rights, period. That same person can make that same decision as an individual and it would be protected by applicable individual rights.

> And what about books? So I can self-publish a book, since that's just me. But if I decide to use a publisher, is the content of my book now regulated?

The government, by censoring the publisher is censoring speech made by a non-employee individual author. Also for this and many if your assertions, corporations who are presses have a special right. There wouldn't be a need to call out the press in the first amendment if presses were by default humans because then they had freedom of speech already defined for them. Corporations and companies have been around before the US constitution (ever heard of the easr india company?), to my knowledge, thhe press is the only time a corporation is mentioned in the constitution. This also implies that corporations who are not pressee can be censored from publishing things the government dislikes.

> Does this mean I cannot incorporate to make my taxes simpler and to separate my personal liabilities from my business liabilities?

Yes you can, but you can't escape liability as a business and then turn around and also demand rights as if you didn't separate yourself from it. You can't escape responsibility and then demand rights that come with it.

> Hopefully this helpa you understand why this isn't such a straightforward issue

It is a straightforward issue. A "person" in the bill of rights is human like organism that emerged from a woman's vagina.

What's next? You can't contractually force companies to do work because they are people and slavery is illegal?

The truth is, the wealthy ruling class have made it so that they can use bullshit like this to gain unequal treatment under law.

Thanks for the response. I am not sure I understand the point about freedom of the press.

You say all corporations should have their words regulated, but you also mention freedom of the press. This seems contradictory.

If the constitution does not apply to corporations, then how does the New York Times have protections from it?

Or more aptly, what about Citizens United? Aren't they part of the press?

And who determines which corporations are part of the press? Does Comcast get an exception (because of MSNBC) but not for Exxon?

> The legal construct of a corporation itself only exists because they are regulated without any rights. That's why you can shield yourself from many legal responsibilities by setting up a corporation (even anonymously in some states), because its not a human with human legal accountability

First, a nit: corporations as entities have similar financial accountability as a person. The real dynamic is that people create them to avoid themselves being personally accountable for their actions.

But the reality is much worse than you describe. You, as an individual, cannot actually spin up an LLC or corporation and have it protect you. There are too many ways to pierce the corporate veil of small businesses where the owners are directly involved in running it - one big general argument is that owner-operator's negligent action directly caused $bad_outcome, and owner-operator is still personally liable for their personal actions, regardless of the entity. The only way you can actually get the benefits of the liability shield is to find a bunch of other people to actually do all the work of operating the business, essentially creating the a group project where resulting actions are either written off as "nobody's fault" or that of some judgement proof employee. So the liability shielding properties of LLC/corps are ultimately only for the rich and not the average person - which isn't terribly surprising if you look at their legal history and other now-deprecated forms of entities (eg Limited Partnerships).

I wholly agree with you that corporations and LLCs shouldn't be viewed as just groups of individuals, by virtue of them obtaining a government charter and a liability shield. This narrative that companies are merely gatherings of individuals is utterly disingenuous. If you want to create a group to collectively exercise your individual rights, do so without asking for a regulatory handout.

The individuals already have speech. The nuance regarding corporations is therefore moot; at most it serves to perpetuate the idea of corporations which we probably don’t need but the 24/7 babbling is required to get us to believe they really exist.

It’s the engineering equivalent of making a Homer car.

Never underestimate primates abilities to string together grammatically correct English for no reason but to masturbate their language faculties in a vain attempt to matter more than they do.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that speech is irrelevant, therefore freedom of speech is also irrelevant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com