- Joined
- Feb 2, 2022
- Messages
- 13,039
- Reaction score
- 5,331
- Location
- The Twilight Zone
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?
If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?
So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?
If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?
You know what corporations who are people if I remember Mitt correctly don't have. Guess what corporations don't get, locked up when they commit a crime. If corporations are indeed people and can say and do whatever with their money again I ask, why does nobody from the corporation go to prison?So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?
If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?
You know what corporations who are people if I remember Mitt correctly don't have. Guess what corporations don't get, locked up when they commit a crime. If corporations are indeed people and can say and do whatever with their money again I ask, why does nobody from the corporation go to prison?
For doing what?
Who would you send to prison for the following:
Sarbanes did impose fiduciary duties upon officers of the company who can be held personally liable for certain actions.
Yes, but not because of the Constitution. They have those freedoms because we have chosen to extend them those rights, by statute. And generally I would say that it's appropriate that we do so.So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?
Yes, corporations should be able to speak on political issues without punishment from the government. I'm not a fan of Citizens United though, which equates dumping money into political ads with free speech. That seems very inappropriate to me. But I have no problem with a corporation issuing a press release saying "We as a company endorse Congressman Smith for governor."If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?
So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?
If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?
That is not prison time.
That's a logical fallacy. Whether "righties" or "lefties" have a "position" (moral?) to "whine" doesn't have any relevance to the question. The answer doesn't depend on the quality of the person answering it.Righties are in no position to be whining about the rights that corporations are given.
That's a logical fallacy. Whether "righties" or "lefties" have a "position" (moral?) to "whine" doesn't have any relevance to the question. The answer doesn't depend on the quality of the person answering it.
What's your position? Should they, or shouldn't they? And why/why not?
So if a Communist--a literal Communist, not just someone to the left of Attila the Hun--starts a discussion about the merits of private property, you don't think they have suspicious motives?
Protecting speech from government suppression was never about protecting popular speech.
A person's motives are totally irrelevant to the question of what legal rights they should or shouldn't have.So if a Communist--a literal Communist, not just someone to the left of Attila the Hun--starts a discussion about the merits of private property, you don't think they have suspicious motives?
You didn't answer my question.
White kids sell plenty of dime bags, and black people commit plenty of white collar crimes.Not sure, I think you can go to prison for fraud or embezzlement but only if prosecuted. Lets face it, white collar crime always gets treated leniently compared to some black kid selling a dime bag.
Yes, I did. One’s (non-criminal) “motivation” for speaking does not alter their right to speak.
A person's motives are totally irrelevant to the question of what legal rights they should or shouldn't have.
I'll answer that --So if a Communist--a literal Communist, not just someone to the left of Attila the Hun--starts a discussion about the merits of private property, you don't think they have suspicious motives?
I'll answer that --
Maybe.
I don't know what their "motives" are. Some literal communists may have benevolent motives, and they may think that private property is theft (and immoral) and that it would be a benefit to society for there to be no such thing as private property. Despite a benevolent motive, their ideology, in many other people's opinions, is destructive and an affront to human dignity. Other communists may well have motives to oppress and seize power, or plenty of other motives.
Your question had nothing to do with the discussion in the first place.Yes, and that had nothing to do with my question.
Do they have Constitutional rights, like freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.?Coprporations may not be individual people but they do have rights. What makes anyone think differently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?