Care to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person, or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the decisions of many citizens.
This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.
A company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).
If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?
> Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).
But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to make sure that every person gets an equal voice in government.
Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales.
!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!
Contrast it with an organization designed to emphasize a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.
I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter.
For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay?
It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.
However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value.
On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.
This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.
!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!
This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.
For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
> I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter.
Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter.
> It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.
So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve?
> On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.
Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions.
> This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.
Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?
> This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.
Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for citizens, not arbitrary entities.
> For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power (through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to represent the interest of human citizens.
Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter.
The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable chose not to buy shares.
Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions.
The company is acting as a group of people who have agreed to devote a certain amount of their wealth (their initial investment) to work toward a certain purpose (whatever the charter says).
The "company" doesn't actually exist - all there is is a set of contracts between shareholders. The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the shareholders and other parties.
Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?
If you choose to buy products from companies supporting segregation, that's on you. Steve Jobs doesn't have mind control rays. He neither forced you to buy shares or an iPhone.
Also, the issue if your trading partners spending money on causes you dislike is not limited to corporations. For all you know, the owner of your local bakery is a secret racist sending money to the Klan.
I'd also like to add:
> Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).
You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker news comments, not your computer. The computer is a direct representation of you. A company is a distinct entity created from the collection of people. Your analogy is faulty.
> The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable chose not to buy shares.
Yet the charter which is agreed upon is a distinct entity concocted by human beings. At best it's a monster like frankenstein.
> The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the shareholders and other parties.
Yet the company is also a distinct entity.
Look the US government guarantees rights to individuals, not groups or corporations. Groups that come together for a common interest only amplify their voice by the collective pooling of their individual voices. A corporation pools those individual voices into a mob, which does something else independent of any one person's will. It's a distinct entity. It is not a human. It does not have rights like a citizen.
I can't stress this enough: the government guarantees certain right to individual people, not groups that can be arbitrarily formed.
You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker news comments, not your computer.
And the government is not restricting your rights with it's "no criticizing Obama with a computer" law. It's only restricting the actions of your computer.
A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms. Incidentally, the government does grant people the right to form groups - it's called "peaceable assembly".
But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?
Also, this brings us back to my (and Robert's) original question: if free speech doesn't apply to corporations, can the government censor the corporate media?
> A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms.
People lose their individuality when participating as part of a mob. A group is a distinct entity formed by a mob. It is not like any of the individual singled out people.
The mob when formed acquires distinct characteristics and behaviors that distinguish it from any individual human being, who may be governed by neurons, emotions, and psychological disorders, etc. A mob can also be potentially a million times more powerful than a single human being, so how can you give such an entity the rights of an individual? Moreover, humans may like chickens and dogs, but a mob, through some freak compromise, decides to satisfy itself by breeding a half dog / chicken. Such a thing would never be concocted at the individual level, but is potentially possible at the mob level. And if it works out, it could actually be the most logical solution to satisfy the mob (an entity).
> But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?
That depends. If the sole purpose of you publishing your paper is to advance the factional agendas of NYU, AND if NYU acknowledges that your paper is speaking for NYU, the entity, then yes. But that doesn't mean you can't personally publish the paper. The only thing that can be potentially forbidden is NYU, using it's power to give your paper more voice and merit than it deserves. However if you are publishing it personally, then no such regulation can happen because constitutionally your rights are protected.
I want to add to that. So consider the United States (assuming you live in the US). Do you consider it just a vessel for your opinions? Do you agree with and support everything the United States does? I'm going to assume you said no to that (if yes, then I'm arguing with a crazy person). And do you think any one person in the United States agrees with everything the United States government does? It would be extremely unlikely if it does happen, and even if it does happen, the US government has the possibility of veering away from that person. This is because the US government is a distinct entity formed when the mob of people come together. Unlike your computer, it does not act exactly as you do.
Remember the focus is not on the company, it's on what the company creates when it is a formation of a bunch of people. It creates a distinct entity which usually ends up being a compromise of its constituents wishes. People act differently in a group, they can lose their humanity, and usually there's less responsibility for misdeeds. This thing the mob creates should in no way be treated on the same level as any individual constituent of it. This is because, as I have tried to show you, it is not simply a vessel of any single human being.
Why the strong reaction against advertisements? Are they such a terribly efficient means of mind control that no collection of individuals banning together should be allowed to sponsor them?
Advertising for products is of course fine. The reaction is against playing in the political arena with an agenda motivated by their profit rather than the overall good of the country.
Not only that, but if I make money selling porn, do you want me to use my power accrued from people's lust to be used to promote some agenda completely unrelated like say... teaching creationism? People need porn, but most people don't want creationism. So should porno buyers be forced to indirectly support creationism?
If something is beneficial to the people, the people will vote for it. It's the fundamental of democracy.
Do customers of your employer really want their money to indirectly support your political views? Probably not. Therefore, you (like a corporation) should be forbidden from spending your own money trying to persuade people that your point of view is correct.
I should not be forbidden because i'm a human. A company is inhuman. It may be like a human because it has corporate bylaws that can potentially change, but it is not a human. It does not have equal rights granted by the government. THe government serves humans.
Your humanity is entirely orthogonal to the argument you made:
"Not only that, but if I make money selling porn, do you want me to use my power accrued from people's lust to be used to promote some agenda completely unrelated like say... teaching creationism? People need porn, but most people don't want creationism. So should porno buyers be forced to indirectly support creationism?"
Even if you're just a clerk in a porn store or a model on a porn site, customers are equally "forced" to support whatever you do with your paycheck.
And? You keep harping on the distinction while carefully avoiding explaining why it should make a difference - beyond declaring that yes, there is indeed a distinction.
When I give money to a company, I am in no way "forced" to support anything the company or any employee does afterward. I've spent my money; it's theirs, now, not mine.
If I really don't like what they do, I can avoid buying from them.
This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.