Does A Company Deserve the Same Privacy Rights As You? 379
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important case to determine whether or not AT&T deserves 'personal privacy' rights. The company claimed that the FCC should not be allowed to distribute (under a Freedom of Information Act request) data it had collected concerning possible fraud and overbilling related to the e-rate program. The FCC argued that the information should be made public and that companies had no individual right to 'personal privacy,' the way individuals do. As it stands right now, the appeals court found that companies like AT&T do deserve personal privacy rights, and now the Supreme Court will take up that question as well. Given the results of earlier 'corporation rights' cases, such as Citizens United, at some point you wonder if the Supreme Court will also give companies the right to vote directly."
Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
then corporations will soon have more rights than people do
They already do. They get all the rights we do but with very few of
the consequences.
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
They already do. They get all the rights we do but with very few of the consequences.
Absolutely. Corps will start to deserve the same rights as people the day something like a manslaughter verdict is enough to fiscally isolate an entire corp from society in the same way jail would isolate a flesh and blood human.
Corporate draft (Score:3, Interesting)
Just had this brainstorm:
If, in the future, a draft is called, then corps, in all fairness, should be called up too.
The way it would work, I guess, is for the corporation to give money and materiel in lieu of manpower.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that rights require concomitant responsibilities.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They already do. They get all the rights we do but with very few of the consequences
Perhaps it's time for the blissfully ignorant people of the USA to step up and take back some of those rights. Oh wait I forgot.... we never do anything like this until we are pushed to the brink. Damn lazy society. At least we can't complain that the corporations are raping us....OH WAIT DAMN.
Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)
There is an enormous difference between a public company and a private company. A public company is not entitled to any privacy where the information being withheld has a material impact upon their actual or perceived value to current or potential investors.
Any company that attempts to keep secret information, that has a detrimental value upon the company, is attempting to defraud potential investors and, setting them up for losses, so that existing corrupt executives can dump their worthless share options onto yet another sucker pension fund.
That AT&T are signalling their intent to keep secrets facts that could have an impact upon their investment value is a sign to the SEC that AT&T should immediately be investigated to find what else in being kept secret and about to explode in current or potential investors faces after, AT&T executives and insiders have dumped their shares.
If the claim by AT&T is the information should be kept secret because it will affect their value, then logically the judge is forced to release that information equally to all parties at the same time, for exactly that reason.
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, by definition a corporation is set up to make people less liable for their actions. I mean, what did you think LLC stands for? Sure, if you order your corporate minions to outright murder someone you'll usually go to jail, but if it's along the lines of "whoops, the battery in that car explodes and kills people? Who would have guessed?" all that happens is that the corporation is fined some money. The government doesn't even get to go after anyone's personal bank account.
I personally think that this is a complete travesty. We should, basically, abolish the corporation. If you're going to do business, you will be responsible for making sure your products don't kill people - not some nebulous legal entity.
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
The original idea isn't bad. Corporations are supposed to exist to shield investors in a company from liability created by its officers.
Actually, in the US, the original idea of a corporation was that they had to serve the public good. Every 20 years, the corporate charter was reviewed by the secretary of state. If the corporation was no longer serving the public good, its charter was revoked and the corporation was no more. See Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights [amazon.com] for the whole history.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL:
An LLC doesn't guarantee complete immunity. If there's evidence that you not only knew about the exploding batteries but also demanded they be sold anyway, you may be held liable. I believe LLC is supposed to protect the investors and officers from liability due to an unintentional or unforeseen event.
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC didn't keep Bernard Madoff from going to jail for operating a Ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how would they find that evidence, when all you did was demand the impossible from your employees and get a faulty product out of it?
Hell, if you just went around and said "look guys I know it has some problems but we need to ship now" you'd still be pretty much safe. Bernie Madoff's only failing was that he was so blatant about it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't ya hear?
Come this November Microsoft will be casting approximately ~1 million ballots (one per employee they represent). Ditto Apple. The corporate "person" has won the right to vote. (just joking). The employees *inside* the corporation have the right to vote, speak, hire lobbyists, et cetera but the corporation itself has no more rights than a building.
This truth is self-evident.
Corporations *do* have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The employees *inside* the corporation have the right to vote, speak, hire lobbyists, et cetera but the corporation itself has no more rights than a building.
The participants in a corporation are shielded for the most part from personal liability. That's the secret sauce that makes corporations so desirable; the people who form a company can pool their money and the entity is held responsible for the activities they collectively engage in, rather than the individuals involved. This is a great incentive for generating entrepreneurial activity, but it also means that the corporation has a legal life of its own, separate from even the founding individuals, much less people who were brought aboard long after the founders died.
The people inside the corporation spend money on lobbyists, PR campaigns, PACs, and so on, but they are merely the servants of the corporation. When Altria spends millions on local, state, and federal elections every year, it's not because J. Worthington Snipe, the guy who runs their Dirty Tricks Division, is exercising his rights as an individual. It's because Altria is taking advantage of its legal right to free speech, as defined by a series of Supreme Court decisions that completely ignore the fact that voting rights only matter if they are not completely overpowered by the 1st Amendment rights of goliath corporations.
The fact that corporations are legal fictions in no way diminishes the fact that they have been given many rights we would otherwise associate only with human beings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
...how do you mete out punishments?
Corporate death penalty. Revoke the charter. Seize all assets. Render all shares worthless. It would be very effective. The so-called "innocent" share holders? Tough shit... Next time keep an eye on the people you invest with.
Corporate officers who make decisions can be charged personally for any criminal violations that may occur.
So yes. it can be made as simple as desired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate death penalty. Revoke the charter. Seize all assets. Render all shares worthless. It would be very effective.
Well, that is already always an option. The problem is often that the company has fought all the way down or is some form of separate legal entity. Take SCO as an example of the first, even if Novell and IBM win a kazillion dollar in damages the assets will never cover it. A lot of other companies, particularly in areas like construction often just exist to put up the building then go bankrupt so people can't claim liability for shoddy work. Or like every restaurant and night club runs, one property company
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points today. But you're already at +5 so ... ;)
Corporates server under charter of the state. They exist as a creation of the state. And as such the state should be able to revoke the charter under certain conditions, and the board of directors and Chief officers arrested and held criminally.
The board is there to make sure that the Officers are doing their job, and if everyone is on the same ticket, they should be tossed into the same cell to rot.
I'm for free markets, and liberty to people. Not corporate collectivism and rights to non-person entities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"You are irrational."
The fact that it is not the case, not in this world, not now, doesn't make him irrational. Was somebody irrational in 1890 if he thought heavier than air flying machines could be built?
"I don't get to pick the stocks I own in my 401(k)."
Then you get to pick the stocks you own in your 401(k). Is that impossible? Change the procedures to make it possible.
"I could either not participate, or the fund manager selects what I own."
As soon as the law changes so it makes you responsible, you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prison time requires doing something criminal (in theory at least). Criminal Negligence is called that for a reason, because it can get a person prison time. Simple negligence cannot. Maybe it's not obvious given how far the law has moved from its roots in common law and the various state and federal constitutions, but a person who doesn't even realize they own a portion of corp X while corp X is acting on their behalf, is displaying negligent behavior, which normally can give them liability (and damned wel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've added in numbers above so I can address these questions.
[1] Yes. One of the problems with the c
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we should make the U.S. Attorney General an elected position. That way when the population sees criminal activity in a corporation we can vote for the guy who says he's going to prosecute them for it. In the current system we just have to hope that the guy the president picks for the job is on the side of the people. Of course this isn't a perfect fix but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of religion does not grant special tax status. In fact doing so is a violation, as the government is granting exemptions only to certain religions it recognizes as such.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can even see the funding for charities increasing as churches might use them as tax shelters to reduce their total tax burden.
I suspect it would also reduce the level of asset hiding/denial of churches (especially the catholic church) that occurs as failure to declare assests is something that totally ticks off the IR
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just let corporations take over the government...
Hi, welcome to 21st century America, I see you are new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Implying they haven't already.
Short answer: no. (Score:2, Funny)
Long answer: noooooooooooooo!
Re: (Score:2)
More justified answer: PERSONal rights are called that for a reason. Corporations are not people. And, even if they were, who said they were citizens?
Part of me though says "Why not? Our rights and laws are fucked up enough already. Why not break it a little more and see if we can get to the tipping point where everyone realizes we need to fix some things at a fundamental level? I'd be happy if this was a period where your average americans started re-examining things like the patriot act, ACTA, and ho
Re:Short answer: no. (Score:5, Informative)
But corporations *ARE* people in the eyes of law. Even though it wasn't a precedent that was argued in a case (it was a footnote in a case added by a clerk, actually) it is accepted by the courts as precedent, which is what the recent election law ruling saying corporations can spend unlimited money was all about.
Knownothings call for constitutional amendments for stuff like taking away gay rights all the time... why does no one call for a constitutional amendment to REVERSE corporate personhood? It is probably one of the most important constitutional issues of our time and no one talks about it.
And we talk about "strict consitutionists..." When you do the research, there is plenty of evidence that the framers of the constitution did not believe in corporate rights in ANY way. They were VERY sceptical of corporate rights because of their dealings with the East India Company.
We are living through the looking glass when it comes to these issues today. Watch how this goes... people that are for corps. spending as much money as they want in elections say it makes things transparent... but give corporations privacy rights and all of a sudden they can spend all they want on any candidates and don't have disclose what they spend to anyone... and the corporations get even more rights!
Re:Short answer: no. (Score:4, Interesting)
why does no one call for a constitutional amendment to REVERSE corporate personhood? It is probably one of the most important constitutional issues of our time and no one talks about it.
Most of us (definitely me) aren't familiar enough with such issues to know that is the right way to solve the problem. If we force the issue, make a campaign to say corporations are not people, and they defeat it, won't that be used as further indication that they are in fact people?
That and I think few people realize what's happened in the first place. If you ask people on the street about it, I think pretty much all of them would stare at you as if you were talking about trees having the right to free speech.
Re:Short answer: no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do corporations accept personal responsibility?
No...?
So how can they possibly demand personal privacy?
Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
When it can die like I can. When it can be taken off the streets indefinitely for doing harm to other people, the way I can.
Same goes for free speech in my opinion.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I say even then, no. The reason we protect the privacy of individuals is because we recognize a need for human dignity, and that people have a right to private lives outside of the public sphere. Businesses, however, are public entities. They don't have "private lives". They don't go home to wives and children at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we protect the privacy of individuals is because we recognize a need for human dignity
Or to help protect us from overreaching laws by making those laws unenforceable.
Given your criteria corps should have the right (Score:2)
When it can die like I can. When it can be taken off the streets indefinitely for doing harm to other people, the way I can. Same goes for free speech in my opinion.
Careful, given your criteria corporations should have the right to privacy. I suspect that was not your intent. Judges can order that a corporation be dissolved for misconduct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judges can order that a corporation be dissolved for misconduct.
He said "die like I can." When a corporation is dissolved, couldn't that just involve all the executives and assets parting ways, possibly temporarily? Maybe in most cases where that actually happens, the CEOs are convicted on charges and go to jail, and fines are imposed too, but -actually dying-?
If we made it a law that if a corporation is convicted of significant fraud or other misconduct, all of the executives would be executed, the assets confiscated rather than any given back to the shareholders, ma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Judges can order that a corporation be dissolved for misconduct.
And the last time that happened to a large corporation is....
Re: (Score:3)
When it's not a "limited liability" and cash-pump for the people who really own it.
When the public (including common shareholders) have full access to the corporate IP and proprietary info and material information so that they can make the same investing decision an insider can make.
When corporations don't get subsidies from the government treasury.
When a corporation doesn't amplify the political influence of its owners to be greater than the votes of the public.
Public Company (Score:5, Insightful)
As a public company, this is clearly material information that needs to be disclosed to all shareholders (current and potential). Once you start trading stock, your corporate right to privacy pretty much disappears, at least where possible criminal activity is concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right, or allow me to IPO myself and collect money. Yes I'll disclose my whereabouts from time to time by tweeter and foursquare.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently, you're only required to disclose the location of your headquarters (not your plant; i.e., a mail-drop, not your body), and certain elements of your financial state and activity (which are so loosely defined that you can report losses to be gains and gains to be losses in order to manipulate your stock price without fear of being accused of manipulation)...
Re: (Score:2)
Can the FCC buy a share of the company and then demand the information, or would they need controlling interest?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i think you're missing the point in that statement. if it is possible for anyone to buy shares in a corporation, the it is already bein publicly traded and ALL shareholders are supposed to have access to information that can affect the value of these shares.
If it is a private company, no one can just up and say I'm buying shares in your company!! All investment terms are worked out as the owners of the private company decide (which has the side effect of making it more costly and difficult to get new inves
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They can request a copy of the prospectus.
That's it.
Owning a share of common stock does not entitle you to anything the prospectus doesn't say you're entitled to. And the prospectus can say just about anything.
The FCC wouldn't have to buy a controlling interest if it can get on the board, since the board generally has access to everything in the company. But the only sure way to get on the board is to buy a controlling interest. Though if the board decides they don't want you, it will have to be a hostil
Voting (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies already vote with their money.
Since when are rights deserved? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rights exist or don't exist. Once you start to use the term "Do X deserve the right to Y?" you have already lost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when are rights deserved? ... Rights exist or don't exist.
You're misreading the phrase, badly. It doesn't ask if rights deserve to exist, but if corporations have rights and thus deserve to have them protected by law.
When someone writes, "does a tree deserve the rights to life liberty and happiness", they aren't asking if rights are deserved, but if the tree has rights deserving of protection.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. (Score:3)
Well, that was easy. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasting a mod point to reply... Yes.
I have no issue giving the corporation the right to vote as an individual... One vote...
With the same limitations as to contributions an individual has. (one person) and prohibition of lobbying expenses over some trivial amount.
Corporations have "owned" politicians for ages. Thats what must end.
Here's what a "person" can contribute... Lobbying expenses perhaps should fall under these caps.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/contriblaws.htm [about.com]
Conflict of Interest (Score:3, Interesting)
No org, corporate or not, will have privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the examples you've given, I'm not seeing how it's a bad idea.
You belong to a social advocacy or political group that makes a mistake on a tax filing. The IRS collects documentation including membership rolls. Now that membership roll is available through a freedom of information act request.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my mind, corporations are an artifice created to grant certain specific protections to people above and beyond what individuals inherently have. Because of this, it is not unreasonable to expect certain trade-offs if it's practical. "Yes, we'll grant you these additional protections insofar as you're acting on behalf of this 'corporation', but you must give up these rights/protections in return."
The right/ability to form corporate structures is not an inalienable human right, and forming corporate str
Discrimination? (Score:2)
If corporations have personal rights, is that always the case, or only when the law in question fails to specifically distinguish between real people and companies?
For example, my understanding is that McCain-Feingold was struck down becuase it limited the "free speech" of corporations.
On the other hand, there are other laws I think, perhaps pertaining to voting, that absolutely must never treat corporations as identical to real people.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a serious joke to allow corporations and unions to have the same right to speech that individuals have. One of the biggest problems with the political system right now is huge amounts of money funneled in to the races. Allowing groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to sland
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The right to vote and the right to free speech are tightly enmeshed.
One of the smartest things said here. A person is exercising their own right of free speech when they actively seek to hear the speech of another, for example by looking for a candidate's web page and reading the candidate's platform. Not only is it a violation of the candidate's right for the government to block his or her speech, it's a violation of that same right in the listener, who may become the active speaker at just about any time.
Can you arrest them? (Score:2)
Yes, corps subject to prosecution (Score:2)
If you want the right to privacy, then you need to be arrestable. Aka, if they are found guilty of a crime, then the entire corporation must go to jail. After all, if they can't be held responsible, then they shouldn't get the ability to hide their actions.
Corporate officers can be sued or prosecuted for their decisions and actions. Corporations themselves can be dissolved due to misconduct.
Yes and no (Score:2)
Corporations are not citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations generally employ groups of people. The rights of this group should be decided based on the rights of the citizens involved. By giving corporations legal rights as individuals the US government is creating a subclass of citizens which have more rights than other citizens based on ownership & employment. This is completely backwards in that publicly traded companies are supposed to be publicly owned, and therefore "Personal Privacy" of corporations becomes nothing more than a farce for withholding information important to a public purchase.
All lobbying should be done by virtue of the rights of an individual citizen, not some money machine. Remove this piece of corruption and require all companies lobbying before Congress to include a list of citizens they represent. This means employees & shareholders of these companies would have to agree to be on that list, for EACH LOBBIED SUBJECT. Very quickly we will all see the truth of who's interests are being represented.
Re: (Score:2)
The rights of this group should be decided based on the rights of the citizens involved.
Already done. We do it by creating the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
One thing that crops up (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this. Suppose I personally were doing the business that AT&T was doing. Namely, my superdooper transhumanist implants or whatever allowed me to do the business of a few hundred thousand member corporation. Do I have an expectation of privacy that allows me to deep six an FCC report directly pertaining to my activities that I might find unfavorable to me? To be blunt, I don't think so. In other words, even if we grant a corporation the same privacy rights as a person, I don't see that a person would have an expectation of privacy in this circumstance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like that one. If you're not a lawyer, you should be one.
I'm a mathematician so I'm not in that dissimilar a field. But to be honest, I think my observation should have been almost obvious. Exploring the consequences of an unusual action should naturally be one of the first things done.
The same rights (Score:2)
They get the same privacy rights that the rest of us do. They get to have their browsing habits spied upon, their junk fondled at the airport, and all of their trade secrets given to hackers when a human happens to leave their private information on a public server like an idiot.
One company, one vote (Score:2)
Consider the following: What if a corporation were allowed to vote - one corporation, one vote. How much would that change things, when there are millions of people voting? Indeed, if we could limit the influence of a corporation down to just one vote, that would likely be better than what we have now, where a corporation can influence millions of votes via "soft money" funding of political parties.
In reality, it's not the idea that "corporations can vote" - it's the idea that "rich people, via corporations
Let Congress decide (Score:3, Informative)
Corporations are legal entities defined by law and their rights should also be defined by law. Of course the Congress will do what is right for their contributors. So the people lose either way.
both are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept of rights isn't about what a person can and can't do, it's about limiting the power of government. Freedom of speech is a right. It's implementation in the first amendment is important. The first five words of the first amendment are "Congress shall pass no law". This is an important distinction from "People have the right to" or "People can say whatever they want". "none shall pass", it doesn't matter if it's a flesh wound or a mortal wound, Congress can't make restrictions. Whether people have rights that companies do not is moot. It's whether the government can or can't restrict certain activities.
Some refer to the equal protection clause under these types of situations, but the notion of equality is only relevant if the two entities being compared are effectively equivalent. The notion that companies are equivalent to people is absurd. If companies are equivalent to people, how do you count votes for a company, and in what districts?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're also conflating people and corporations.
Let me just make it clear: any analogy that attempts to explain corporate personhood by starting with "You do/want" is so fundamentally flawed that I'm not sure we're living on the same planet. A corporation is an artificial construct whose only purpose is to optimize productivity. Just to be clear, this means that your driver's license analogy explains and illustrates absolutely nothing about corporate personhood.
To dissect your argument further: disallowing a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Conflating: to bring together, to fuse. You might want to understand the way I'm using a word in order to understand what I'm saying.
The whole does not have to inherit the rights of its parts. Does a government have the same rights as the individuals it is made up of? Of course not. There is a reason for it, and it has to do with the pragmatism of creating a government that can actually benefit society.
You're also inventing a new definition for "corporation" when you say that it is any organization of peopl
No (Score:5, Insightful)
A "Company" already is awarded benefits that are grotesquely wrong. One of my main complaints is that the law views a "Corporation" as a single entity, and in this course physical individuals are legally shielded from direct complaints. Only in the most extreme scenerio, oft brought to light by other equally powerful entities, can an individual or board room member be personally charged with a crime.
So I think Companies, Corporations are granted free reign on any tyrannical act they deem profitable. This is already far too much in my opinion.
Now, on to the issue brought up, under my premise that they already get away with murder, my main disagreement with the idea that they should be awarded personal Rights stems from another argument the have to circumvent immediate democratic measures; in other words, they argue that since they employ people that they inherently represent their views regardless under the assumption what's good for the company in turn is good for it's employees and thus surrounding society. This rationale is so flawed, one could write a book on how it's incorrect even without touching on giving jobs to foreigners or off-shore employees.
The above argument basically boils down to public representation. If you are representing the interests of the public, then you should abide by rules, regulations and scrutiny of the public. Period, no other way around it, no argument suffices to contradict this demand. Companies can't have both to choose from whenever the situation best suits them. When they indirectly cause a famine in Africa.... they are a single entity and those involved aren't directly charged and convicted. When the government comes for them, then they want to hide behind Personal Rights as granted to individuals... all the while, they also have to abide by business laws, and international legislation....
No, AT&T does not deserve explicit rights granted to Individual Citizens. They do not deserve the rights they already have.
Public (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporations aren't people (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently on August 23rd this year, UNITED STATES v. HAVELOCK concluded that mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), which makes it a felony to mail a communication addressed to any other person, does not apply to companies and corporations like news organizations. So since they are not persons, they should not be bound by personal privacy laws.
Rights Are not "Deserved" (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are not privileges. Privileges might be deserved or not. Rights are not "deserved": they are an inalienable feature of a person. Whatever the "creator" is, the creator of actual people that endowed people with inalienable rights is not a person (nor a government), and does not create corporations. People and governments create corporations, which do not have inalienable anything. Corporations are put together and made, and they can be separated from anything that makes them. They have no rights, only privileges actually assigned to the people who are the executives of the corporation.
The entire notion that a corporation is a person is a legal fraud originally perpetrated as a scam [wikipedia.org] by a railroad monopoly. It's only though relentless corporate interference with the law in the US that corporations are treated as "persons" in any way. This fundamental injustice is the deepest flaw in our current democratic republic, and the source of the majority of our hardest to solve problems.
As for privacy, the US government already fails to protect the privacy of actual people according to the enumeration in the Fourth Amendment [cornell.edu]: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Somehow Supreme Court justices can read that specification and not recognize the right to privacy it not only recognizes, but actually enumerates. To protect the privacy of corporations as a matter of "right" would pervert the fundamental basis of the US government beyond any ability to take it seriously except as a public office of private corporate power.
Talk-radio style argument against (Score:4, Interesting)
.
Wait, AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T wants personal privacy rights? The guys who oh-so-helpfully set up special rooms for the NSA to intercept data traffic, thus violating the personal privacy rights of everyone using their network? That AT&T? Pay attention, Ms. Morissette, for THAT is ironic.
There are no collective rights! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no notion of collective rights in the constitution, only individual rights. Corporations (and LLCs) are state sponsored entities where businesses give up some of their rights in exchange for limited liability. By granting them the same rights as people, while still granting them limited liability, they're elevating corporations above individuals.
Now if you're talking about a proprietorship or a partnership, then yes they should have privacy rights as their liability is the same as yours or mine.
If AT&T doesn't want to play by the rules, then they should have their corporate charter revoked. Otherwise just shut up and enjoy your dance with the devil.
Re:There are no collective rights! (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a Publicly Traded Company (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no way it should have any privacy... Its business practices should be part of public record...
Even if it wasn't publicly traded... That information should be released to the public.. There is no accountability for bad business practices the people that gave it the thumbs up and let it go on.. Should be fired with no bonuses or golden parachutes.. They should be jail since they knowing defrauded people of money.
Now we can rephrase the GM and bank bailouts. (Score:3, Funny)
Now we can rephrase the GM and bank bailouts.
They weren't bailouts, they were healthcare for companies. And their healthcare records are private, so shut up, pay up and quit asking questions.
A Person has privacy, a Corporation trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
A corporation is not a natural person, it is a fictitious entity, and so by definition has no privacy to protect. Each individual can protect their individual privacy. The individuals can band together into an association and protect their freedom of association (to some degree).
A corporation has trade secrets, which it protects as a proxy for the interests of the shareholders. There is already legislation and case law protecting trade secrets. A court should not confuse trade secrets with personal privacy.
If they can be punished like individuals, sure! (Score:3, Insightful)
A company cannot operate for a certain number of years and must close its doors if they break laws.
Give them proportional fines:
If an individual person gets a $500 fine for a minor infraction, a company with 100,000 employees breaks gets a $50,000,000 dollar fine for every minor infraction. If a major infraction carried a $250,000 fine (like piracy does) the company will be on the hook for $25 billion
Give them the death penalty:
A jury can liquidate the company's assets for serious lawbreaking if a fine is un-payable or inadequate for the seriousness of the offense.
Hold their executives personally accountable:
No more hiding behind the corporation! If you gave the order to break the law, or your board agreed on such an order, you get to spend eternity in prison while your company gets liquidated.
A Corporaton is Running For Congress NOW (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering how current congress members, such as Boehner, are already primarily representing corporate America, letting corporations be directly in congress will clearly save time and money. If we can just outsource the rest of the Government to a third world country then the dream of Regan Republicans will be fulfilled. The entire economy and running of the US will be done for the lowest price possible by private enterprise. Of course no US citizens except politicians, lobbyists, and corporate lawyers will have jobs, but that is a small price to pay for the ultimate Republican wet dream.
Re:Citizens United (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it, if we sit back and allow multi-billion dollar corporations control our elections, we might as well pack it in.
Go ahead, trumpet your free speech rights all you want -- as an insignificant slave to our corporate masters, what good does your free speech do? Do you think anyone will listen to you when the media is dominated by organizations outspending you by a factor of a thousand to one?
We need to remove the need for astounding amounts of money from the political process. This is the only way we can restore some form of democracy.
Re:Citizens United (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll tell you what undermines the country: simply deciding that you don't like something, and so the rule of law can go to hell.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United has no bearing over what you can say. Before and after Citizens United you could say anything you wanted about the government.
Re:Citizens United (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you'd say I were just as free if the government specified that I was only allowed to criticize the government in falsetto, wearing a tutu, and addressing a potted plant.
Re: (Score:2)
If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say
You're completely missing the plot. It was already legal to do so. Look up what a PAC is. It is the embodiment of your definition. What is different now is that an organization set up with the only goal to make money as effectively as possible is now allowed to participate in the voting process in all but name.
That doesn't strike you as odd? A collection of people whose leaders are required by their organizations' charters to act like sociopaths can now directly influence the democratic process? You need t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the case, that people will mindlessly vote for the candidate with the most advertising, then the fix is not making a bunch of ridiculous, unconstitutional rules about who can say what. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it would be pretty drastic. Fortunately, I really don't believe that to be the case.
Lobbying can give money to politicians' campaigns, but again, that does not necessarily translate to votes.
Re:Citizens United (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is different from any individual buying any of this how? I'm pretty sure Bill Gates (or, if you prefer, Steve Forbes) can buy elections on his own just as well as most corporations can.
Rights do not disappear because you associate with someone, or because you have more money than them. Rush Limbaugh has just as much right to free speech as I do, despite the fact that he influences a great many more people.
Keep in mind that the New York Times is a corporation. So is every other news organization. Why should only "news" organizations be allowed political free speech?
A corporation is nothing more than a specific legal organization of individuals. Corporations do not have rights, but the individuals organized in them do not lose their rights just because they organized.
Re:Citizens United (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of the press is outlined separately in the first amendment from freedom of speech. Maybe there was a reason for that. Wouldn't freedom of speech alone be sufficient if all corporations (news papers included) had the same freedom of speech as other citizens?
Re:Citizens United (Score:4, Informative)
Corporations do not have rights, but the individuals organized in them do not lose their rights just because they organized.
I heartily agree with this, and firmly disagree with the Citizens United ruling. Before Citizens United you lost no rights by incorporating. None. ZERO Every person in the country was free to say anything he wanted, and donate as much as he wanted. You could even organize with your friends and speak as a group.
What you couldn't do was incorporate and use that corporation as a political tool. See, corporations are an artificial construct. The government is under no obligation to recognize the existence of corporations. They could abolish the concept of the corporation entirely, and that would have no affect on your free speech rights. Since the corporation is a construct created entirely by the government, they get to define the scope of that construct.
So you see, limits on corporations have nothing to do with your personal rights to free speech and free assembly. You had exactly the same amount of free speech rights before Citizen's United as you would have in the absence of corporations. Anything the government chooses to facilitate with corporations is a bonus above and beyond your natural rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)