Jon Stewart proves corporations aren't people

Magical Realist said:
Jon Stewart proves corporations aren't people
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever said that corporations are literally people?

They do have similar standing in courts of law. So do governments, non-profit organizations and other things.

If that wasn't true, then it would be impossible to sue them.

The corporation needs to be recognized as having the kind of legal standing that permits it be named as a party in a legal complaint. And once the complaint is served, the company has legal rights similar to if it was a person, such as the right to a trial, the right to be represented by attorneys and so on.

It's a technical thing that people study in law school.
 
Yazata said:
Has anyone ever said that corporations are literally people?

They do have similar standing in courts of law. So do governments, non-profit organizations and other things.

If that wasn't true, then it would be impossible to sue them.

The corporation needs to be recognized as having the kind of legal standing that permits it be named as a party in a legal complaint. And once the complaint is served, the company has legal rights similar to if it was a person, such as the right to a trial, the right to be represented by attorneys and so on.

It's a technical thing that people study in law school.
Click to expand...

Yes, Mitt Romney said it publicly. And SCOTUS upheld that definition in the Citizen's case.
But the law used to read "corporations have rights similar but distinct from human persons".

To my knowledge no one ever clarified the term "distinct from" .

However, I like this article very much,
Corporations and the common good weren’t always at odds. The first corporations were individually chartered by the states to serve a particular public purpose—building a bridge, say, or a turnpike. In upholding the legislature’s amendment of a corporate charter in 1809, the Virginia Supreme Court said
Click to expand...
With respect to acts of incorporation, they ought never to be passed, but in consideration of services to be rendered to the public. …If the (corporate founders’) object is merely private or selfish; if it is detrimental to, or not promotive of, the public good, they have no adequate claim upon the legislature for the privileges.
Click to expand...
- See more at: http://thehumanist.org/january-febr...storing-the-common-good/#sthash.ALWXb9ZT.dpuf
 
OMG!!! "You're not even allowed to do that in Grand Theft Auto!" Funny..funny man.

Hey Ck...this was one of the featured videos from that one. Chicago deep dish vs. New York style pizza. I literally blew snot out of my nose laughing:

[video=youtube;WhORiVsb9Mc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhORiVsb9Mc[/video]
 
GeoffP said:
He's British. Not all English speakers are American.
Click to expand...

Then, for entertaining US political commentary I would also recommend to look/listen to Bill Maher, and the Colbert Report in addition to Stewart. Each has a distinct style but their commentary is always relevant, if not hilarious.
 
yazata said:
They do have similar standing in courts of law. So do governments, non-profit organizations and other things.
Click to expand...
The recent Citizens United ruling had nothing to do with standing in a court of law - it granted corporations the rights of people in political campaigns, and defined their monetary expenditures as "speech".

So a corporation has the same right to hand a politician large sums of money to influence their behavior as a person has to speak to a politician and influence them in that way.
 
iceaura said:
The recent Citizens United ruling had nothing to do with standing in a court of law - it granted corporations the rights of people in political campaigns, and defined their monetary expenditures as "speech".

So a corporation has the same right to hand a politician large sums of money to influence their behavior as a person has to speak to a politician and influence them in that way.
Click to expand...

I always found it bizarre to equate money with speech. Money is a "means of exchange" (quid pro quo), thus it can buy speech, but it is not speech in and of itself. Else everything of value could be called speech and there would be no distinction between speech and things of financial value.
Definition of money (n)
1.medium of exchange: a medium of exchange issued by a government or other public authority in the form of coins of gold, silver, or other
metal, or paper bills, used as the measure of the value of goods and services
2.denomination: a form or denomination of coin or paper money
3.somebody's coins and bills: the amount of coins and bills in somebody's possession
Click to expand...
Definition of speech (n)
1.speaking ability: the ability to speak
2.communication by speaking: the act of communicating by speaking
3.utterances: things that are said
Click to expand...

Can anyone find a common denominator in these two definitions?
 
What I was talking about, and what Jon Stewart was presumably mocking, is the technical legal concept of an artificial, legal or juridicial person. These are organizations, consisting of an often fluid and changing collection of natural persons, that for legal purposes are recognized as being individuals in their own right. A whole variety of things can have this status, including corporations, companies, cooperatives, governments, international agencies, and whatnot. The European Union is a juridicial person. Juridicial persons have some but typically not all of the legal status of natural persons. They can sue and be sued. They can own property. They can enter into contracts. They possess a whole variety of legal rights and obligations, ranging from the right to legal due process to the obligation to refrain from torts.

The concept of a juridicial 'person' isn't an evil conspiracy and it isn't a joke, it's just elementary law school stuff.
 
Write4U said:
Then, for entertaining US political commentary I would also recommend to look/listen to Bill Maher, and the Colbert Report in addition to Stewart. Each has a distinct style but their commentary is always relevant, if not hilarious.
Click to expand...

bill maher and colbert report are excellent !
 
Yazata said:
What I was talking about, and what Jon Stewart was presumably mocking, is the technical legal concept of an artificial, legal or juridicial person. These are organizations, consisting of an often fluid and changing collection of natural persons, that for legal purposes are recognized as being individuals in their own right. A whole variety of things can have this status, including corporations, companies, cooperatives, governments, international agencies, and whatnot. The European Union is a juridicial person. Juridicial persons have some but typically not all of the legal status of natural persons. They can sue and be sued. They can own property. They can enter into contracts. They possess a whole variety of legal rights and obligations, ranging from the right to legal due process to the obligation to refrain from torts.

The concept of a juridicial 'person' isn't an evil conspiracy and it isn't a joke, it's just elementary law school stuff.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say but the question remains if for-profit corporate speech is a personal or impersonal transaction, in which case different ethical rules apply.

Dug this up,
The Law of Impersonal Transactions
Protecting third parties produces a legal commodity which is easy to trade impersonally, improving the allocation and specialization of resources.
Historical delay in generalizing this legal commoditization paradigm is attributed to path dependency—the law first developed for personal trade—and an unbalance in vested interests, as luddite legal professionals face weak public bureaucracies.
Click to expand...
http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1187.pdf
 
If you don't hold people at the top of an organization responsible for what they are doing
they will play a double game.

Officially, they will have a company policy which is squeaky clean, and wholly in line with the law.
Meanwhile, they will pressurize their subordinates to produce results which can only be obtained by ignoring that policy.
This pressure passes down the line.
The people ignoring the policy, and committing criminal acts, may be at a menial level.
Occasionally, the bosses will fire one of these stressed-out chimps, and send a memo sounding really annoyed.
Not annoyed enough to stop it happening though.

The people at the top should be responsible for any wrongdoing at any level,
unless they can show that they have made sufficient efforts to make sure that no-one in their company is breaking the law.

Re Jon Stewart clips
Most can't be watched outside the US for copyright reasons unfortunately.
Very talented man.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I always found it bizarre to equate money with speech. Money is a "means of exchange" (quid pro quo), thus it can buy speech, but it is not speech in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Right. But spending money to promote your message is protected.

Consider parades. They are not speech; the two are different. Public demonstrations are also different than speech. But they are both protected under the First Amendment.
 
billvon said:
Right. But spending money to promote your message is protected.

Consider parades. They are not speech; the two are different. Public demonstrations are also different than speech. But they are both protected under the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually, parades and demonstrations are forms of free speech, the parade/demonstration usually has a name and a message including banners, placards, music, speakers, all designed to publicly announce a proposition or an opposition to a public condition in a public forum. It is an expression of motivation and and an emotional support of an idea. It is a voluntary participation by those involved.

OTOH, money is a means of exchange. The exchange of money creates a legally enforcable "obligation" on the other party. Of course that is why PAC donors like to remain anonymous. There is an implied obligatory contract between a person in authority and power and an anonymous benefactor.

Printed money is clearly labeled and marked as a federal "promissory" note. It is a short form contract and promisory note in a quid pro quo exchanges of goods (organizing a parade) or "future" favorable votes on public matters (exemption from Tax or Law) benefitting the donor.

The USE of money creates an "impersonal transactions" , not protected by a doctrine of free speech.
 
Write4U said:
Actually, parades and demonstrations are forms of free speech
Click to expand...

Agreed. As is spending your money on billboards and political contributions. Parades, demonstrations and political donations are not the SAME as speech, but to the extent they are used to enable free speech, they are protected.

the parade/demonstration usually has a name and a message including banners, placards, music, speakers, all designed to publicly announce a proposition or an opposition to a public condition in a public forum. It is an expression of motivation and and an emotional support of an idea. It is a voluntary participation by those involved.
Click to expand...

Of course. And they are often funded by someone with enough money to want to get a message out. The Charlotte gay pride parade, for example, is funded by Bank of America.

OTOH, money is a means of exchange. The exchange of money creates a legally enforcable "obligation" on the other party. Of course that is why PAC donors like to remain anonymous. There is an implied obligatory contract between a person in authority and power and an anonymous benefactor.
Click to expand...

"Implied" - in some cases. "Obligatory" - disagree. When I contribute to a cause, I have no expectation that the cause will then do what I want.

The USE of money creates an "impersonal transactions" , not protected by a doctrine of free speech.
Click to expand...

Should Bank of America be banned from supporting the gay pride parade in Charlotte? Should a religious group be banned from buying billboards to push their anti-abortion views? Should farmers be banned from buying ads to press for more farm support? Should individuals be banned from contibuting to PAC's?
 
Write4U said:
I always found it bizarre to equate money [thing] with speech [action]. Money is a "means of exchange" (quid pro quo), thus it can buy speech [action], but it is not speech in and of itself....

Can anyone find a common denominator in these two definitions?
[clarifications inserted]
Click to expand...
You accidentally cleared-up your own attempt to create a contradiction. Money (a thing) was never claimed to be speech (an action) itself, only a means to buy speech (an action). Hence, "monetary expenditures" (spending money) = speech
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top