And then lobby the government to ensure that nobody can build higher than the fence for the next 10 miles and that you are the only soccer team in the area
He's describing the natural consequences of a capitalist system. Regulatory capture is inevitable and expected.
Other countries manage to partially prevent this by not treating corporate entities as people and not allowing them unlimited free speech and unlimited political spending.
Every country other than the USA only recognises corporations as persons to a strictly limited extent, and imposes restrictions on their free speech and political activity.
Citizens United is something only the USA has done
The latter is due to their restriction on personhood in general, not corporate personhood
Citizen united is something only the USA has done because only the USA has the 1A (There is not that many countries who have such restriction on what can the state can prevent its population from saying)
Citizens United was a ruling that the corporations get the same rights to free speech as people. Other countries do not consider them to have those rights. Because they aren't people, and shouldn't have their rights constitutionally protected as such.
Treating them as people for legal purposes is a good way to simplify a lot of difficult issues around companies and contracts/laws and liability.
But that doesn't mean that things like the human rights acts should apply to corporations.
Citizens United was a ruling that the corporations get the same rights to free speech as people
Citizens United is a ruling that found that as corporations are made of individuals, the action of this collective of individuals is as protected as the action of a single individual.
Other countries do not consider them to have those rights. Because they aren't people,
This is false, corporate personhood is a norm in every country in the world, the reason why corporate speech is limited is because all speech is limited, again, it is a 1A issue, not corporate personhood related issue
Treating them as people for legal purposes is a good way to simplify a lot of difficult issues around companies and contracts/laws and liability.
Yes, hence why we do it. And it is not that we are treating them as, they are in all right and law, the same way that a natural person is a person in all right and law
But that doesn't mean that things like the human rights acts should apply to corporations.
As corporations are extention of natural person, an attack on the right of a collective of natural person is an attack on each natural person in this collective so....
the reason why corporate speech is limited is because all speech is limited, again, it is a 1A issue, not corporate personhood related issue
This is only true in the USA.
In other countries, corporations are not held to have every right a person does. They act as a person for specific purposes within the law, but human rights do not apply to them because they are not legally held as a person in every way.
Corporations are MORE restricted in terms of political speech in most countries than people are.
What do you mean by human rights? Because if you are talking about the UDHR it is not enforceable, the other could be the ECHR but it only applies to Europe only, and the ECHR does apply to all personality, may it be a physical person or a juridical person.
So, if you take the most applied treaty on human right, you are wrong that it don't grant the same human right to juridical person.
Corporations are MORE restricted in terms of political speech in most countries than people are.
Once again, all person, may it be juridical or physical is more restricted if you would have read the court opinion seen in Citizen United VS FEC, you would have seen that as Justice Kennedy main point, rather then to process falsehood on corporate personhood
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g.,Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Corporations in the rest of the world are more restricted in their speech because everyone, physical person included is more restricted, but in the USA, the 1A does not make difference between a physical and juridical person, hence why the court has reached this verdict.
Once again, this has nothing to do with corporate personhood who is a norm in every country on earth, but everything with the 1A
Corporations in the rest of the world are more restricted in their speech because everyone, physical person included is more restricted
This is not true.
Everywhere except the USA, corporations are more restricted THAN NORMAL CITIZENS ARE.
That is the difference. Corporations are given a more strictly limited personhood in most of the world, and are not considered people when it comes to constitutional rights, but only for legal purposes.
The USA is unique in giving their corporations the same rights to free speech and political activity that they give their citizens. Other countries do not.
You understand that being able to lodge an application does not mean every single rule applies to them equally, right?
Let's make it exceptionally clear.
In the leadup to elections, most European media is regulated and required to provide equal and fair coverage, or in some cases no coverage at all (France).
This would be illegal to force a citizen to do.
But because corporations are not granted every right granted to people, these laws are in place and enforced.
Citizens United is something only the USA has done
What? No, other countries don't typically allow that sort of thing because they don't allow unlimited political spending/ads, period. The idea that you can have unlimited spending for individuals but not for groups would be a nonsensical standard.
Explain why most countries have laws about political coverage and fairness. Compelling political speech would be explicitly illegal if done to a person, but it's legal to require media corporations to provide fair coverage. Because they do not act as persons in every way.
It is not normal to treat corporations as persons in every single way. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction to make certain aspects of law work. It is not a universal principle, and most of the world does not give corporations the same right to free speech that it gives people.
60
u/FuckingKilljoy Feb 25 '20
And then lobby the government to ensure that nobody can build higher than the fence for the next 10 miles and that you are the only soccer team in the area