Hacker News Reader

Comment by f0a0464cc8012 | Hacker News Reader

But then why does a corporation need freedom of speech etc?

Because a corporation is a group of people, and a group of people don't lose their freedom of speech just because they joined a collective.

And corporations can stand for things. They can have missions and use funds to effect speech in support of causes that align with their beliefs.

Is a corporation really a group of people? Of course people are involved with the corporation, but the corporation doesn't represent its employees, shareholders, management or customers. It's a separate legal entity with complex relationships with its employees, management, shareholders and customers, but with its own rights and responsibilities.

There are organisation forms that are a lot closer to being just a group of people working together, like co-ops and firms maybe. I'm not entirely up to date on all options in English-speaking countries (which will vary of course, but the Dutch Maatschap is probably as close as you can get to a company that's just a group of people.

>the Dutch Maatschap is probably as close as you can get to a company that's just a group of people.

So the Dutch just go ahead and call a group of people a "mash up"!

Co-ops and firms sound like they are a subset of corporation. If they aren't, what makes them different in your mind? Corporations can take many forms and organize around many different principles.

Isn't a corporation incorporated or something like that? With limited liability and everything? Or does it also cover tiny 1 person outfits? I admit English isn't my first language, but I've always understood it to a be a specific form of company.

I looked into Maatschaps and understand where you are coming from now.

If a group of workers create a Union, should the Union be allowed free speech?

I believe it would be redundant to explicitly grant freedom of speech to an organization such as a union, as its individual members inherently possess this right.

And you will find similar reasoning in the Citizens United decision with respect to corporations:

> If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com