[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Admiral Yi]

Corporations themselves are pieces of paper in a filing cabinet in Delaware.  When Bernie rants about big corporations he's talking about the actions of the human beings who own the corporation or those they have delegated decision making to. 

I don't understand your point about the rich.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think substituting in [corporations] is valid, as corporations are not people.

You are correct, in every country whose highest court remembered that point.  But sadly that is not so in the USA any longer - remember back when, in its wisdom, the USSC gave freedom of religion rights to a corporation?

[Jacob]

Corporations themselves are pieces of paper in a filing cabinet in Delaware.  When Bernie rants about big corporations he's talking about the actions of the human beings who own the corporation or those they have delegated decision making to.

Corporations are legal constructs that exist to 1) pool resources in pursuit of goals (typically profit, especially via increases in share prices), and to 2) isolate owners from the negative consequences of the actions taken by the corporation.

It's perfectly valid to discuss the actions of corporations, and the consequences of those actions.

I don't understand your point about the rich.

My point is that no one (as far as I'm aware) who are arguing for hate speech protections are saying it should apply to protect [the poor]. Therefore using [the rich] as a counter scenario is irrelevant.

On the other hand, plenty of folks are saying [gay people], [non-white people], and [women] should be covered by hate speech protections, so therefore using [straight white men] as a counter scenario is relevant (whether or not you think a distinction should be made between those different groups or not).

[Admiral Yi]

It's perfectly valid to discuss the actions of corporations, and the consequences of those actions.

Legal constructs don't take actions.  Only people take actions.

My point is that no one (as far as I'm aware) who are arguing for hate speech protections are saying it should apply to protect [the poor]. Therefore using [the rich] as a counter scenario is irrelevant.

On the other hand, plenty of folks are saying [gay people], [non-white people], and [women] should be covered by hate speech protections, so therefore using [straight white men] as a counter scenario is relevant (whether or not you think a distinction should be made between those different groups or not).

You're following a different line of logic than I am.  I'm not saying if the lefties get gays then righties get straights to make it even, I'm arguing for universal principles.  If gays deserve protection from hate speech it should be because they are people, and all people should enjoy the same right.

[Sheilbh]

My point is that no one (as far as I'm aware) who are arguing for hate speech protections are saying it should apply to protect [the poor]. Therefore using [the rich] as a counter scenario is irrelevant.

On the other hand, plenty of folks are saying [gay people], [non-white people], and [women] should be covered by hate speech protections, so therefore using [straight white men] as a counter scenario is relevant (whether or not you think a distinction should be made between those different groups or not).

Straight and white would be covered. The characteristics are sexuality and race. UK hate crime laws and equalities legislation are based on characteristics not groups.

Man probably isn't. I'm still not sure what "variations of sex characteristics" means. I think it's been consulted on and would basically means physical sex developments that are different than would normally expect of males and females. But that was UK government consultation in 2019 - so I'm not fully sure if that's what the Scottish law refers to (probably). But my first thought on reading that was either that it covered sort of the physicality of sex characteristics, then I thought it might be trying to cover non-gender confirming/non-binary. Now I'm not sure.

And it's worth pointing out from my understanding, you don't need to be gay or straight or x ethnicity or religion in order to be covered. If it's based on perceiving you as x then you could be covered (though that's more hate crime aggravating another offence, not stirring up hatred).

Legal constructs don't take actions.  Only people take actions.

People can't live forever. Legal constructs can.

[Jacob]

Legal constructs don't take actions.  Only people take actions.

However, the legal consequences for the actions people take on behalf of corporations typically accrue to the corporate entity, not the people taking the action.

You're following a different line of logic than I am.  I'm not saying if the lefties get gays then righties get straights to make it even, I'm arguing for universal principles.  If gays deserve protection from hate speech it should be because they are people, and all people should enjoy the same right.

That's not my argument, no.

My point was that there are certain categories of groups that are protected by anti-hate speech legislation. So therefore it's instructive to examine whether the legislation is actually applied to all groups in a given category, or only some.

Your position seems to be (and I didn't quite understand that until now - which is why my point didn't address your point) is that if any category of group is entitled to protection against hate speech (groups defined by ethnicity, gender, sexuality, et. al) then similar protections should apply to any and all grouping of people however they're defined (favourite colour, dietary preference, beer drinkers, criminals, club membership, financial status, or whatever). Is that correct?

[Admiral Yi]

People can't live forever. Legal constructs can.

Legal constructs can't shoot you with a gun and kill you.  People can.

Jacob: yes.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think corporations can shoot you

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think corporations can shoot you

Neither do I.

[crazy canuck]

Corporations can contract with people to shoot you. 

I am not sure what point Yi is trying to make.

[Jacob]

Jacob: yes.

Cool

I'm going to leave it at that for the time being

[crazy canuck]

However, the legal consequences for the actions people take on behalf of corporations typically accrue to the corporate entity, not the people taking the action.

That is not accurate.  The laws in most countries now create statutory legal liabilities for directors (and sometimes officers) for acts of corporations that violate the law.  Examples include health and safety laws and employment standards severance obligations. 

So it is more accurate to say that corporations always have liability for the actions of the corporation and sometimes the corporation's officers and directors also have personal liaiblity.

But your main point is accurate.  It is always the action (or often non-action) of the corporation that attracts the liability.

[Jacob]

That is not accurate.  The laws in most countries now create statutory legal liabilities for directors (and sometimes officers) for acts of corporations that violate the law.  Examples include health and safety laws and employment standards severance obligations. 

So it is more accurate to say that corporations always have liability for the actions of the corporation and sometimes the corporation's officers and directors also have personal liaiblity.

But your main point is accurate.  It is always the action (or often non-action) of the corporation that attracts the liability.

Fair. Thanks for the correction.

[grumbler]

Corporations can contract with people to shoot you. 

And, with USSC, they will probably be able to claim self-defense if they stand their ground.

[Valmy]

I don't think corporations can shoot you

Well that goes against all the JRPGs I have played.