[a2xd94]

> "In its complaint, X Corp. argued that AB 587 violates the First Amendment..."

How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?

While we're at it, maybe we should also find corporations liable for damages done on the communities they serve, with the chief executives being the proxy humans for those damages, including murder (ahem chemical, oil companies)? That would be highly satisfactory.

[solardev]

If a corporation doesn't have speech, nonprofits like museums and schools and abortion clinics and lobbyists wouldn't be able to say stuff without censorship. (The press and churches are separately protected, but the 1A applies more broadly to organizations other than them via corporate personhood).

That said, I think Citizens United (money is also speech, go ahead and corrupt the political process even more with dirty invisible money) is pretty fucked up, and yes, corporate liabilities should also include executive criminal prosecutions for crimes against society (and humanity!).

[postingawayonhn]

Corporations are just collections of people working together. Why would they not have freedom of speech?

[explaininjs]

Freedom of speech should only be given to those people and/or collections of people the parent already agrees with, of course.

And only the good guys should have guns (as determined by an Expert’s “mental health” assessment).

And of course the state is free to seize funds from criminals.

Oh and while “our guys” are in federal power we’d better create a bunch of new rules and regulations, that way we can coerce all those states filled with idiots into our hightened moral ground.

[avmich]

There is a difference - collection of people is not a person, at least not for all cases.

[bcrosby95]

Corporations are not just collections of people. If that's all they were you wouldn't have to incorporate and there would be no concept of "piercing the corporate veil".

[mrguyorama]

Because they are not "just collections of people", corporations are a legal fiction meant to be a handout to a group of people for investing in the economy.

It's insane. If you just get five people in a group and start selling lemonade that hurts someone, you do not get limited liability protection! You only do that if you file some legal paperwork. That legal entity, separate from any of the individuals involved, is what a "Corporation" is.

[ryandrake]

> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?

"Corporations are people" when it comes to rights and privileges, but when it comes to damages and criminality, they are vague, amorphous entities that cannot possibly be held liable for anything. Very convenient for them.

[shadowgovt]

> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?

Barring superseding reasons to the contrary, in general US legal structure ascribes to corporations the same rights ascribed to individuals. This is a new construct (about 1970s) but it is the law of the land as interpreted by the Courts. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec...

[empath-nirvana]

> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?

14th amendment.

> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Corporations are "persons"

[Nifty3929]

>> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?

Because they do. It is written in the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

It doesn't say only for natural persons. Nobody has ever interpreted it that way. The constitution limits government power, and this particular limitation is right up at the top for good reason.

[chrisandchris]

As a non-US, I sometimes get the feeling that for everything that a citizen / company does not like, he / it can just cite the first ammendment. It feels like half of a "get out of jail card" in monopoly. I do not know all the content of the first ammendment, but there must be a lot of text in.

[sickofparadox]

It's short but dense: 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.

Because of all those 'or's it outlines quite a wide swath of protected activities. Because of the 14th amendment, it directly applies to not only the federal government, but also state governments.

[solardev]

It's actually really short...

> 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.

That's it. But it's caused centuries of back and forth arguments and mountains of case law and supreme court opinions.

The US has a sort of Stockholm syndrome relationship with our Constitution... it's really hard to interpret or change and basically it's read however a given generation of politicized judges wants it to be. A decade or two later that will change, somewhat, and then be reversed again. Public will has little impact on it, and the supremes have no accountability. It's a mess.

We worship it as sacred but it creates a lot of problems in modern society the the ancients didn't foresee. It's an entirely undemocratic piece of paper holding the country and its future hostage, IMO.

[Facemelters]

it's quite short, but it's a fundamental right

[midasuni]

https://journalistsresource.org/economics/corporate-speech-f...

“Citizens United” wasn’t the first time nor the last.