"the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all" (NPR story)

[mod mom]

heard this on Morning Edition this am:

Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can


January 29, 2010
Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.

As he tells NPR's Ari Shapiro, "Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned.

"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."

In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."

snip

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596


"the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all" and yet the SCOTUS rules their free speech needs to be protected? WTF!

[elleng]

1. Discussion here.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/the-next-time/?hp

[mod mom]

3. Thanks.

:hi:

[azul]

2. You mean there are cameras in the corporate bathrooms?

Oh my goodness.

[paulsby]

4. frame it correctly

the 1st amendment is not about what govt. can do. or what govt. can protect. it is about what govt. CAN'T do.

"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."

it doesn't say "people have the right to free speech"

it says "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of the speech"

people are overemphasizing the corp's as person thang, and not realizing that the 1st amendment doesn't refer to persons or the people. it merely says what govt. is prohibited from doing, among other thing - making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

it doesn't say "abridging the freedom of speech of persons". it merely says abridging the freedom of speech.

note that it only refers to THE PEOPLE when it taklk about the assembly and petition of govt for redress of grievances

note that even prior to this decision, MEDIA OUTLETS, which are corporations were not subject to the restrictions that were overturned by this decision. corporations that were NOT media outlets were.

people always refer to the "corporate media".

guess what? the media were unaffected by this decision. what this decision did was recognize that the govt. can't say "corporate media can say x,y, z" before an election but NON-corporate media can;t.