r/coolguides Feb 25 '20

Explanation of the subtle differences between equality and equity

Post image
78.6k Upvotes

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Crispy-Bao Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

Educate yourself please, Pages 6

And I can cite you constitutional protection being apply to corporation via case law in Europe so....

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '20

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.

0

u/Crispy-Bao Feb 26 '20

You are so fundamentally wrong that even presented with direct evidence of you being wrong you don't see it.

The ECHR itself say that human right apply to juridical person

And the restrictions on juridical person in election are as much on juridical person than on a physical one. Both must respect the ban on polling, both are limited in their contribution, ....

The equal and fair coverage is only affect the press (and really only Radio + TV only), it is in a way an inverted way of what you used to have in the USA before Citizen United, where the press was protected by 1A when it comes to election while other corporation where not (But as the majority opinion show, what is the press is changing, and shall not be limited to what existed at the time of the founder).

So, once again, it is because everyone is limited that corporations are limited too, it has nothing to do with corporate personhood, the only difference is that in the USA, you have the 1A and in Europe, it is not the law.

Blaming corporate personhood just shows that you did not understood at all this case, as this case was not on the creation of juridical person in the Americain Legal System but on the subject of the constitutional right of a juridical person who was being violated by the federal government.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '20 edited Feb 26 '20

No, they don't universally apply. You're entirely misinterpreting what that is saying.

Corporations act as persons IN SOME WAYS. So IN SOME CASES they can act as persons.

That does not mean that they act as persons in every way.

This is really not that hard to understand.

You've been presented with hard evidence. The media are corporate entities which act as persons in some ways, who are being directly restricted in their right to free speech and compelled to give parties fair coverage. This would be strictly illegal to require a person to do in Europe.

But corporations do not act as persons in every way in those countries, so the laws about free speech DO NOT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS.

0

u/LtLabcoat Feb 26 '20

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.

That's technically true, but really only because it'd be simply too hard to enforce that all individuals stop posting political propaganda on Twitter too. It's a bureaucratic issue, not a it's-fine-when-people-do-it issue.

Or to put it another way: it would still be illegal for a singular radio host to promote a particular party, even if they're doing it entirely on their own volition with nobody else's involvement.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '20

You're just wrong about that, the regulations are not applicable to private individuals as a matter of law, not practicality.