Are corporations "people"? (1 Viewer)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, I'm intending this as something of a technical discussion. I think legally, they are considered persons, but what does that mean? What rights do they have and what responsibilities do they have?

They don't have the right to vote, so are they citizens? I think I'm confused on their legal status for a bunch of different things and why that is.

And then there is a discussion on what are the benefits and what are the costs of considering corporations as people.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

No, the notion of legal corporate personhood does not mean the same thing as "person" as used outside the legal context. That is what I meant.

But let me ask you: should the New York Times have a right to free speech?

each and every reporter has their right to free speech - what additional right would the newspaper need?

 

[wardorican]

I think the problem is that people confuse Corporate personhood with money = speech (aka citizens united). and that's wrong.

First, some simple history.

History of Corporations in the U.S: First Corporations to Present

Read a short history of the American corporation, from the first industrial producers to the period of American business hegemony following 1945.

www.investopedia.com

Further, specific information.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. The basis for allowing corporations to assert such protections under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[citation needed] Thus, treating corporations as having legal rights allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[4]

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.[5] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather argues that political speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker, which could be a person or an association of people.[6][7]

I think another area of ire is how various corporations just seem to suck money out of the system for the executives and board members, ,not really much of anyone else. And when CEO's do a rotten job, they still get compensated some ghastly amount. Look at Boeing, for a good example.

 

[JimEverett]

each and every reporter has their right to free speech - what additional right would the newspaper need?

Yes, but the corporation is paying each reporter for their speech, and paying to distribute the paper. If a corporation has no rights then it allows the government to restrict what a corporation does, right? Like restricting a corporation from engaging in political speech, even if each owner and/or employee of the corporation has the right to speech.
That, in fact, is one of the reasons we have corporate personhood.

 

[wardorican]

each and every reporter has their right to free speech - what additional right would the newspaper need?

The right to sue, be sued, be taxed as a singular entity...

 

[JimEverett]

The right to sue, be sued, be taxed as a singular entity...

More than that. If a corporation has no rights then the government can prohibit a corporation from distributing speech or paying for it. Not to mention that the employees' writings are done in the name of the New York Times, its the corporation that actually owns the work that is published.
Look at McCain-Feingold - that is exactly what the Citizens United case stopped from happening.

 

[wardorican]

Mote than that. If a corporation has no rights then the government can prohibit a corporation from distributing speech or paying for it.
Look at McCain-Feingold - that is exactly what the Citizens United case stopped from happening.

I'm aware, I just went for the low hanging fruit... even though that fruit wasn't directly in line with what you two were talking about.

 

[V Chip]

But let me ask you: should the New York Times have a right to free speech?

Yes because it’s specifically spelled out in the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(And yes, it doesn’t say that the Press has the right to Free Speech but that’s splitting hairs. Freedom of Expression is the most central idea to our Bill of Rights.)

 

[JimEverett]

Yes because it’s specifically spelled out in the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(And yes, it doesn’t say that the Press has the right to Free Speech but that’s splitting hairs. Freedom of Expression is the most central idea to our Bill of Rights.)

Yes - we agree. Corporations should have rights - like the right to free speech and freedom of the press. Rights should not apply solely to non-corporate individuals.

 

[V Chip]

Yes - we agree. Corporations have rights - like the right to free speech and freedom of the press. Rights do not apply solely to non-corporate individuals.

Not sure I completely agree. Freedom of the press is spelled out and the NYT is press, so... not sure that Freedom of the Corporation is in the Bill of Rights actually but it’s been a while.

Can a corporation bear arms? Can a corporation plead the 5th? Does a corporation have a right to life and liberty or pursue happiness (can a corporation be happy)? Does a corporation have a right to counsel (or appointed counsel)?

 

[JimEverett]

Not sure I completely agree. Freedom of the press is spelled out and the NYT is press, so... not sure that Freedom of the Corporation is in the Bill of Rights actually but it’s been a while.

Can a corporation bear arms? Can a corporation plead the 5th? Does a corporation have a right to life and liberty or pursue happiness (can a corporation be happy)? Does a corporation have a right to counsel (or appointed counsel)?

Yes, I agree - not all rights. But some rights - which is exactly what corporate personhood entails.

But I did not ask whether the NTY should have the right to freedom of press, rather - freedom of speech. Let's take a corporation that does not have as its one of its purposes press reporting - say a book publisher. Do you think Harper Collins should be afforded freedom of speech even though it is a corporate entity?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Under what standing would the NYT have the right to freedom of the press if not as a legal person?

Rights are reserved for persons, legal or natural.

 

[V Chip]

Yes, I agree - not all rights. But some rights - which is exactly what corporate personhood entails.

But I did not ask whether the NTY should have the right to freedom of press, rather - freedom of speech.

I know what you asked and I specifically addressed that. “Freedom of speech” and “Freedom of the press” are so similar and intertwined that they are frequently called “freedom of expression.” Freedom of the press *is* freedom of speech. “The press” is not a person, it is a concept that can be a single person but was in general intended to be for thins like newspapers. In fact, in Lovell v Griffin, the SC found that “the liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It embraces pamphlets and leaflets.” That implies that from the beginning the idea of freedom of the press was intended to cover more than an individual right. And since that right is spelled out in the First Amendment, it seems odd to me to try and argue that freedom of the press does not give a newspaper freedom of speech.

 

[dtc]

Yes, but the corporation is paying each reporter for their speech, and paying to distribute the paper. If a corporation has no rights then it allows the government to restrict what a corporation does, right? Like restricting a corporation from engaging in political speech, even if each owner and/or employee of the corporation has the right to speech.
That, in fact, is one of the reasons we have corporate personhood.

Government can and does restrict what corporations and people do and there is no reason that a corporation should have the right to anonymously voice the speech of individuals.

If you want to be heard, be heard, but I don't feel it's reasonable for people to hide behind a corporate veil to disseminate political speech.

 

[JimEverett]

I know what you asked and I specifically addressed that. “Freedom of speech” and “Freedom of the press” are so similar and intertwined that they are frequently called “freedom of expression.” Freedom of the press *is* freedom of speech. “The press” is not a person, it is a concept that can be a single person but was in general intended to be for thins like newspapers. In fact, in Lovell v Griffin, the SC found that “the liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It embraces pamphlets and leaflets.” That implies that from the beginning the idea of freedom of the press was intended to cover more than an individual right. And since that right is spelled out in the First Amendment, it seems odd to me to try and argue that freedom of the press does not give a newspaper freedom of speech.

So you think corporations should have freedoms spelled out in the Constituion? I am trying to understand your position.

 

[V Chip]

So you think corporations should have freedoms spelled out in the Constituion? I am trying to understand your position.

I'm saying they don't already, so it's a poor comparison to make against a newspaper or other entity that *does* have that freedom spelled out in the Constitution.

The rights corporations *do* have are by judicial decision. And as much as we try to believe that judicial decisions aren't affected by politics and lobbying and special interests... they unfortunately are. Some judicial decisions made in the past are not very good ones IMO. Regardless, any judicial decision is also subject to being overturned by later/future judicial decisions, whether it was a poor decision or a good one.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm saying they don't already, so it's a poor comparison to make against a newspaper or other entity that *does* have that freedom spelled out in the Constitution.

The rights corporations *do* have are by judicial decision. And as much as we try to believe that judicial decisions aren't affected by politics and lobbying and special interests... they unfortunately are. Some judicial decisions made in the past are not very good ones IMO. Regardless, any judicial decision is also subject to being overturned by later/future judicial decisions, whether it was a poor decision or a good one.

I guess I am not understanding what you mean.

Corporations do have certain rights. For example - the right to free speech. Do you think they should or should not?

 

[wardorican]

Yes, I agree - not all rights. But some rights - which is exactly what corporate personhood entails.

But I did not ask whether the NTY should have the right to freedom of press, rather - freedom of speech. Let's take a corporation that does not have as its one of its purposes press reporting - say a book publisher. Do you think Harper Collins should be afforded freedom of speech even though it is a corporate entity?

I think Freedom of speech is a bit complicated, because, I'm not sure if freedom of speech matters regarding personhood. i.e. if corporations were a 'person' from the 14th amendment, would the 1st still apply? I think yes.

So, does a corporation's freedom of speech depend on being a "person"?

 

[JimEverett]

I think Freedom of speech is a bit complicated, because, I'm not sure if freedom of speech matters regarding personhood. i.e. if corporations were a 'person' from the 14th amendment, would the 1st still apply? I think yes.

So, does a corporation's freedom of speech depend on being a "person"?

If a corporation is not a "person" then I don't see how it could have any rights. A legislature could grant it certain privileges, I guess - but that would not be rights.