> 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.
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.