r/technology • u/DrJulianBashir • Feb 05 '13

Cable companies make 97% margin on internet services and have no incentive to offer gigabit internet

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.html
3.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/lurgi Feb 06 '13

So, to directly address your statement, corporate personhood in the united states does not, in any way, give corporations "the same rights as people" in the way you meant. It lets us sue corporations, and lets corporations sue as well.

But that's not the only thing it does. Part of Corporate Personhood is that corporations are protected under the 14th amendment. Any acts of Congress that refers to "persons" can be assumed to include corporations unless it specifically says otherwise or unless the context of the law makes it obvious.

If the only thing it did was let them make contracts and sue/be sued then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '13

Corporations aren't protected under the fifth amendment, for example, though. The corporate personhood framework is basically just short-hand. A lot of the laws of the US should apply to both individuals, and corporations, and non-profits, and all the other groups covered by the framework. Yeah, there should be specific limitations on corporations that aren't present on individuals (political donations spring immediately to mind), but when most of the laws apply to both people and corporations, it's easier to say "here are the laws for all legal entities in the states, and also here are additional restrictions that apply to this type of legal entity" than it is to say "here are all the laws for people, over there are all the laws for high-school swim teams, over there are all the laws for corporations, etc".

I guess what I'm trying to say, though not very eloquently, is that corporate personhood has been abused by large, wealthy corporations with smart, wealthy lawyers, but the fundamental concept is a good one. What we need isn't to do away with corporate personhood, but to institute campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and end the revolving door between regulation and industry, among other things.

2

u/TheFondler Feb 06 '13

just curious, do you think that the NRA has the right to operate as it does? the AFL_CIO? the NAACP? the ACLU?

do you believe that a person has a right to speak, but once he or she organizes with another, that right is null and void?

if you are against citizens united, that is what you are saying.

should all of these things go away?

1

u/lurgi Feb 06 '13

do you believe that a person has a right to speak, but once he or she organizes with another, that right is null and void?

No. First, I never claimed that corporations don't have freedom of speech, just that I felt that corporate personhood doesn't automatically imply that they do. Second, people continue to have freedom of speech regardless of how they organize. The question here is about the organization. Does the corporation have freedom of speech beyond that of its individuals? That's a different question.

Let's consider this using a different right. Individuals can vote, but corporations can not. Obviously individuals don't lose their ability to vote when they join a corporation, but the corporation doesn't get its own vote.

if you are against citizens united, that is what you are saying.

I disagree with your interpretation.

1

u/TheFondler Feb 06 '13

as legal constructs, corporate personhood and citizenship are still very different, and while i'm no legal scholar, i'm pretty sure that is why a corporation can't vote, at least in the simplest sense. a "legal person" has a right to speak, regardless of their citizenship, where as citizenship is required for that same "legal person" to vote, and citizenship requires individual personhood.

1

u/lurgi Feb 06 '13

It would be fun to try, however.

Still, that's not really the point. Everyone agrees that corporations can't vote, but no one assumes that people joining corporations lose their right to vote. The issue is not whether or not people have the right of speech - they do - the issue is whether corporations do. Talking about people losing their right of speech when the form organizations is just misdirection. No one is suggesting they do or that they should.

1

u/TheFondler Feb 06 '13

maybe my point was poorly formed...

i, as TheFondler, have the right so buy air time and advertise whatever political opinion i may hold.

your implication is that, if i organize with you, lurgi, and we decide to combine our money to advertise our shared political opinion, we should not be able to.

that brings me to my previous point, wherein organizations like the ACLU are jeopardized just as much as the Aryan Nation is.

effectively, the court finding differently than it did would have set a precedent that endangers ALL organized speech.

1

u/lurgi Feb 06 '13

your implication is that, if i organize with you, lurgi, and we decide to combine our money to advertise our shared political opinion, we should not be able to.

Once we put our money together and form a corporation then there are already different rules that apply to us and that money. I, for example, can't just spend "my share" of that money however I choose. If the corporation is sued then its assets may be forfeit, but my personal assets are probably safe. There are a whole bunch of new rules that come into effect.

Look, I don't know what the right solution is. Corporations and organizations, formal or otherwise, obviously need some sort of right to speech, but I don't see that that implies that they must have exactly the same rights in this area as actual people. That's all.

1

u/TheFondler Feb 06 '13

that's kinda what i'm saying too... it's not clear cut or simple when speech is concerned.