Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal judge smacks down challenge to Obama administration's birth control insurance coverage rule (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a bridge too far (3+ / 0-)

    corporations speak, they advertise everyday.  We have gotten used to that idea.  Whether their freedom should have extended so deeply into the political sphere, and whether their cash donations were beyond regulation, I am not sure I agree with the Court. To the extent that the corporation's is allowed to protected speech, it is to protect the financial investments of real persons.  That should be the delimeter.  And if the interests of the corporation are too diverse, ie, shareholders can't agree, should they be allowed to act on their rights?

    But belief in a diety.   Rather a uniquely human not just personhood type activity.   Can a corporation actually worship?  Can it believe on faith in a diety?  Can it seek salvation for its eternal soul, or its god spark, or whatever.  As an unnatural entity, can in have faith in Gaia, etc.

    •  Turn it around (8+ / 0-)

      If it has no thoughts, how can it exercise freedom of speech? Do you not think, then speak?

      Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

      by blue aardvark on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 02:42:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sometimes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare

        but again,  the corporation is a financial collective.  It operates collectively for one real purpose, to pool capital in an economically effective manner.   When it comes to its collective economic activity, limited rights make sense. And in modern times, advertising is a major commercial undertaking.  So yes, the corporations thinks to spend money to further its profits, part and parcel of its collective purpose.

        But when does an economic collective become a spiritual being?  How does it further the economic collective to pray to God?  If a rich man isn't making it through through to heaven, how can a collective that exists to make money?

        Again,  do you truly see belief in a deity as the same as corporate speech in the commercial sphere?  A computer can speak,  does it have a soul?  And no, for the purposes of this conversation, we aren't addressing the Mitt'bot.

        •  Which, again, raises the question (0+ / 0-)

          of why such a financial collective has any rights at all.

          Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

          by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:32:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  every economy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark

            benefits from financial collectives, and so do individuals in many cases, so it makes sense to create them,  but their ownership, regulation and distribution of benefits are what matters.

            Farm collectives are generally considered very progressive,  if owned by the farmers who contribute the crops to them,  credit unions are frequently better for the consumer than a large bank,  socialist countries have collectives, that may or may not work, etc.  Labor unions are a financial collective as well, a counterweight to the corporate collectives that allow workers to speak with a unified voice for their rights with management.  I would accord a labor union speech.

            That's the problem with laws and due process, one has to try to fashion rules that fairly control those we like and those we dislike equally.

            The ability to have many people working together, sharing benefits is not bad.  Modern extensions of power to private corporations need to be curtailed, but not necessarily outlawed entirely.

            •  Which is to say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jfromga

              a corporation has no rights, not being a person, but we can extend to it such powers as enable it to act beneficially within society.

              Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

              by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:53:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if we extend to them the power to own (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blue aardvark

                property, we extend to them the rights of ownership, including defending title in court, receiving compensation in eminent domain cases.

                Commercial speech, of a different class than ordinary 'human speech', exists.   What the courts have done is take political speech and accorded it to corporations, which was a stretch initially, but I can see the reasoning,  political process affects their commercial interests, just as it affects any individuals' interests. I think, however, that is better addressed through regulatory process and not political elections. But Citizen United went further, and said cash is speech, giving financial collectives an advantage over humans in the political process.  Not just some rights to participate in the political process, but given their nature as financial collectives,  giving them superiority over humans. Cash should never triumph over votes in a democracy.

      •  Well, Republicans are known to ready, fire, aim (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freelunch, skohayes, LadyMiseryAli

        I believe Obama suggested that about Rmoney after the Libyan consulate situation.

    •  This is such a fallacy. Corporations do not speak. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast, cybersaur, SherriG

      People speak on behalf of corporations. A corporation cannot formulate an opinion, argument or any other kind of thought. It's plainly ridiculous.
      The supreme court was WRONG on this.

      Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

      by Catskill Julie on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if a corporation (0+ / 0-)

        the collective voice as to the financial interests cannot speak, can you steal their words, no copyright protection for their advertising, no trademark protections, etc?  Only for individuals?

        You have to give a name to the collective's rights.

        Or flat out state you want them banned, nothing but sole proprietorships as entities for doing business.  Or you could argue their should be absolutely not private ownership of property period. One could make that argument, but if one allows corporations to exist, then they have financial interests that must be recognized by the laws.  As such, they have limited rights of persons, if you can't take property from an individual by eminent domain without payment, you can't take it from the corporation.  If an individual can own the rights to their words, a corporation can.This is a matter of line drawing, of extending necessary protections but never forgetting that personhood is a legal fiction to address these entities' rights and obligations, and that they are never the equivalent of humans as to all rights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site