[dhd415]

There are certainly legitimate concerns about the influence of Amazon and other large corporations, but the solution is not so simple as what you suggest. Corporations are associations of people, so you are advocating for civil rights for individuals up until they associate with others and act or speak collectively. That would be radically detrimental to the meaning of civil rights.

[atmavatar]

Corporations do not exist to facilitate collective advocacy. There is zero reason to believe that the views of the C-suite or board of directors for a corporation represent the views of a majority, significant minority, or even any of its employees.

Pretending like they are a vehicle for collective speech merely amplifies the speech of the owners at the (potential) expense of the employees. Perpetuating the facade is sadly both another symptom and a furtherance of the corrupting influence of money in our politics.

[solidninja]

Unless of course the only corporations allowed to exercise free speech rights were collectives of workers :)

[BobaFloutist]

What about civil rights for individuals up until they form a legal structure oriented around amassing profits and protecting the individuals from liability?

An argument could be made to have different rules for benefit corporations and non-profit corporations as opposed to traditional for-profit corporations.

[heroprotagonist]

Corporations have personhood in and of themselves, and not in representation of a collective of people. This is what builds the corporate veil and legally shields investors and operators as individuals, to some degree, from corporate actions.

[andrewmcwatters]

This concept muddies the waters, and as a society we should be keen to identify concepts that do just that.

It’s simple enough to draw the line at registered organizations. These entities after all are afforded distinct legal privileges.

[dhd415]

Organizations such as the ACLU and the American Red Cross are registered organizations and I doubt you'd advocate for restricting or redefining their civil rights. Perhaps you'd draw the line at for-profit organizations, but that doesn't make it better. Should Ben & Jerry's or Patagonia or other corporations with notable positions on social issues not enjoy the protection of civil rights from those who oppose them?

The bottom line is that any restriction or redefinition of civil rights is fraught with negative unintended consequences. It should be an option chosen with extreme care.

[twoodfin]

Registered organizations like the New York Times Company?