Is Every Stockholder in America Is Now a Criminal?

[insidejoke]

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

"The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 13, Section 1.
________________________

slavery
n.
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
________________________

So if corporations are now "persons" and these "persons" are bound in servitude as the property of other, then wouldn't that make those others be in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Corporations aren't people... they simply enjoy several rights granted to persons.

Logic failure.

[DJ13]

3. Enjoying the Rights of personhood without the obligations people have

Seems like having their cake and eating it too.

[Johonny]

8. pretty much

[Foo Fighter]

10. Isn't that the way it works in DC?

Sure looks like that from what I have seen. One set of rules for the top 1% and another set for the rest of us.

[Learning Nomad]

4. Rights aren't granted to persons or corporations by the Constitution

People and groups (including corporations) have the right to free speech regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution simply bars Congress from infringing on those rights. What groups do you believe don't have the right to free speech?

[safeinOhio]

9. Any group that can not be held accountable for its' speech

such as a corporation. While a corporation can be sued, those that make up the corporation have limited liability and can not loose anything. An individual, you or me, can go the jail and pay fines.

[Learning Nomad]

11. Nonsense. I ask again, what groups do you believe aren't entitled to free speech?

Your answer begs the question. Does the ACLU have the right to free speech? Does the John Birch Society? Do the National Enquirer, New York Times and General Motors have different rights to free speech? Why is a business corporation different?

[truedelphi]

14. A business corporation cannot suffer for its misdeeds - what corporation goes to jail?

And like the other poster mentioned, even those human beings responsible for the Corporation usually have their personal liability limited. The Big Shots can say they didn't know their firm was making bad deals, (Look at former officials at Enrion, for starters) while the smaller business person often is making those deals on their own and has no way to say he or she didn't.

People die - while the Corproation lives on and on. people even die for their free Speech Rights, look at the blood shed in Mississippi during the era of Civil Rights struggles.

Maybe there should be a legal statute put in place that if you don't have blood, you cannot be seen as a person.

[Learning Nomad]

16. Ridiculous argument, and you're not answering the question.

What groups aren't entitled to free speech in the US? We're not talking about liability in other aspects. Why won't you address the question? Let's make it simple: Is the ACLU, as a corporation, entitled to free speech? What about the NYT?

[truedelphi]

19. In my lexicon, free speech is totally unrelated to bribery.

A question for you -- How we have arrived at a place that no other nation on earth has arrived at, the wholesale sell off of our political processes to the highest bidd4er, I don't know, do you?

All other nations on earth make a distinction between groups of people, individuals and Corporations in terms of free speech. All other nations on earth make a distinction between bribery and free speech.

If they do it in the other nations, we should be able it here.

[Learning Nomad]

20. I'm assuming that this post is a joke.

[truedelphi]

21. The heads of 41 Businesses just issued statement(s) calling on Congress to

make a distinction between individuals and the rights of free speech and Corporations.

In fact, the head of Hasbro pretty much quoted me in saying that there has to be a distinction between bribery and free speech.

So if I am all that ridiculous, then so are these 41 executives.

[Learning Nomad]

22. Yes, you are that ridiculous if you read what those execs said in that light. And you still avoid

relevant question, but you have to because you have no rational response.

[truedelphi]

24. Are you aware that the Corporation rights to free speech

Were non-relevant to American political life before 1880, when a court clerk made some scribble in the margin of a decision and somehow that eventually came to mean that Corporations should be treated like a person.

Yet despite the fact that none of the special treatments accorded to Corporations came about till after that late date, Corporations did just fine between 1788 and 1880?

And if you would spell out what question you think I am mis addressing, I would know what you mean.

[truedelphi]

25. Here is a URL for the video on how the PERSONHOOD concept became

Legally established and applied to Corporations. (It was alla mistake!) Pls note - in one or two occassions, Hartmann uses teh seventeen hundreds when he means eighteen hundreds, as the Fourteenth Amendment did not become law till eighteen hundrerds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=426559&mesg_id=426559

[insidejoke]

12. But We Have All Kinds of Limits on Corporate Speech

The Supreme Court has found that you can limit commercial speech at least as far back as Valentine v. Chrestensen where it held that, "he Constitution imposes...no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." This doctrine has been questioned over the years, but never overruled.

We have limitations on what information a corporation can say about their product, what they can say about their competitors, when and how they can advertise, we have ALL KINDS of limitations on the way corporations can conduct themselves, and we even regulate the types of behaviors and words they can use over public airwaves. In other words, we can regulate speech of a commercial nature...or at least we could until yesterday. Presumably Pfeizer still can't change the name of Zoloft to "Exciting Happy Pills - Eat Me Now!"...

[kudzu22]

13. Call me crazy, but

where in the First Amendment does it say that free speech is only protected for individuals?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not saying I like the ruling -- surely it will be bad for the country. But I'm not seeing where you have to be a single solitary person to have your speech protected. Speech itself is what Congress cannot restrict. I haven't read the whole dissent yet (it's LONG) but I don't think Stevens even said that only the speech of individual people is protected.

[insidejoke]

17. I'd Argue That It's Implied Throughout the Constitution...

...where it's made clear that these are the rights of the States and of the People. Corporations are not people but property, and the right to and of property owners are mentioned explicitly. I'm pretty sure that if the drafters had intended for some property to be treated as people then the drafters would've mentioned it, but they didn't. By the same token, are dog barks and a cat meows protected speech merely because this section of the Constitution doesn't explicitly state "people"?

More importantly, I'm not saying that commercial speech isn't protected, but I am saying that it can (and has been) limited in the past. This opinion creates a whole new view of that speech, and I personally find that very scary. Yeah, I agree that my example above is absurd, but I tried (and from the look of this thread failed) to use this thread to point out just how absurd it was.

[kudzu22]

18. How about if you train your parrot

to utter political slogans? <Squawk!> Vote for Fred! <Squawk!>

[insidejoke]

15. But If They're "Persons" Under the Constitution...

...then aren't they "persons" for all of the rights and privileges under Constitution? Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling didn't say anything that I've found to suggest that these corporations are "persons" for merely limited persons. Logically, (failing or otherwise) I have to take that to mean that the Court didn't see any limitation to this identity where the law or where the Constitution is involved...

[cali]

2. no. that's what you call a stretch.

and I think many people are under a misapprehension about what "personhood" for corporations means legally.

[insidejoke]

5. I Don't Disagree...

...but I think that the US Supreme Court (or at least five of its members) are under a misapprehension about what "personhood" for corporations means legally, too.

[bbinacan]

6. A stockholder is

a part owner of a corporation.

[DJ13]

7. Will the stockholders be responsible if their investment supports a candidate

that stockholder doesnt agree with?

[bridgit]

23. Hm, well, touching on Criminal Mischief < Negligence, Assault, Battery maybe even Mayhem

:scared: