For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[chipwich]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

[mongers]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time). 

[Valmy]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

[chipwich]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

[Valmy]

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

Please.  You are a baby.

[chipwich]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

No, self-defense only works in specific circumstances. Even a prisoner on death row doesn't have the right to defend himself against the people who are trying to kill them

[chipwich]

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

To say that the NYT Company has "press rights" is a sloppy form of expression.  If meant metaphorically or as a kind of mental shortcut, it isn't a big deal, but taken literally it can lead to serious error.

The First Amendment is a restriction on Congress from restraining the freedom of the press.  The implication of the Amendment is that it bars Congress from doing certain things that might in turn impact on the NYT Corporation.   But it isn't right to leap from that to say that the NYT corporation, qua corporation "has rights"

If the corporation does not have rights it cannot sue the government when those rights are violated.

Despite its absolutist literal language, the First Amendment is in reality typically applied according to rules of reason, i.e. weighing the impact on speech and expression vs. the interest served by regulation in accordance with a standard.  The relevant impact is measured with respect to human beings not artificial entities.  Because it is possible that a restriction aimed at an artificial entity can materially impact natural persons, however, the Court quite rightly has held over the years the rule LaCroix quoted in Austin - the fact that "X" is a corporation does not mean that speech emanating from "X" is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Sometimes that complex formulation is reduced to shorthand of talking about "corporate freedom of expression.". That's not really the right way to talk about it, but as long as that was understood as merely convenient shorthand, no harm no foul.  But with Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Court tumbled down the slippery slope.

I'm not familiar with Austin (which apparently has been overturned). I am familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner which states that corpotations can sue for damages under the first amendment.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

To prevent the redistribution of wealth outside the boardroom and Wall Street.

[Razgovory]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

No, self-defense only works in specific circumstances. Even a prisoner on death row doesn't have the right to defend himself against the people who are trying to kill them

A prisoner on death row and been given due process.  I'm not sure if purchased by corporate raiders counts as a due process.

[garbon]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I thought that was cute as well.

[Eddie Teach]

It's only going downhill from there...

[Ideologue]

Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Underemployment, sir.

[Ideologue]

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

[garbon]

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

You're reaching Gral levels.