Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member

The Magistrate

(94,320 posts)
14. He Makes a Ludicrous Argument, Ma'am
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 10:54 AM
Apr 2014

What, after all, but a person, can speak?

The very concept of incorporation is to embody, to create out of some group of persons, whether a town or a guild originally, or later a group of investors pooling their money, a legal person which can have obligations and rights separate from the individuals who collectively constitute it. It is only as a 'person' a corporation has any existence at all.

But the idea that the legal embodiment of a group of persons, called into being to be a focus of rights of contract and to shield individual owners or members of it for its debts and liabilities, can have any opinion on any matter separate from the persons who own it, is nonesense. Worse then nonesense, it is an obvious impossibility, on simple physical grounds. Can anyone seriously imagine, say, the Caterpillar corporation disagreeing with its CEO, arguing with him on some point of social policy, and even going so far as to spend its money to rally public opinion against his view of the matter? To simply state the thing is answer it with 'Not just no but fuck no!'

Disallowing 'free speech rights' for corporations does not restrict the free speech of any citizen, or any actual person, in the slightest degree. All it does is require them to use their own resources to express their views, rather than the pooled resources of the corporation they own or direct, resources which are not theirs in the first place.

"The trouble with our modern corporations is they have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."

Crickets from the peanut gallery.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #1
Well--if corporations have a first amendment rights that can be expressed through political msanthrope Apr 2014 #2
Absolutely! So would I! VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #3
You will note that he refuses to discuss the corporate personhood issue---- msanthrope Apr 2014 #5
He Makes a Ludicrous Argument, Ma'am The Magistrate Apr 2014 #14
Well said...we trump the rights of actual persons when we pretend that enities with money and power msanthrope Apr 2014 #16
for the same reason that those who have a first amendment right to hate racial minorities dsc Apr 2014 #95
Explain that. I can't discriminate in hiring because of Title 7. So tell me the legal theory msanthrope Apr 2014 #97
the same legal theory that underlies title 7 dsc Apr 2014 #98
But no person would be entitled to birth control...male or female. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #99
they cover things like penis pumps etc dsc Apr 2014 #101
Indeed...but people do have the right to refuse under conscience laws. Why shouldn't Hobby Lobby msanthrope Apr 2014 #103
No they actually don't have that right dsc Apr 2014 #104
But HL is arguing that their corporate personhood allows for First Amendment protections. msanthrope Apr 2014 #107
and use them to be exempt from a cc mandate (to provide insurance that complies with the ACA) dsc Apr 2014 #108
Indeed...and when Libertarians like Mr. Greenwald make the argument that you do, I msanthrope Apr 2014 #110
I have never heard Greenwald say the Civil rights law shouldn't apply dsc Apr 2014 #114
Given his racist stance on immigration, and his decision to defend Matt Hale msanthrope Apr 2014 #116
I think you should cite his opposition if it exists not extrapolate from stances you don't like dsc Apr 2014 #121
Indeed...I've written on this before... msanthrope Apr 2014 #124
She set up another goal post for you Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #117
Do you ever contribute to a discussion... polichick Apr 2014 #48
Signs point to no Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #52
Yep, kind of obvious I guess. polichick Apr 2014 #66
Well...aren't you (and I, speaking to you right now) doing just that? nt MADem Apr 2014 #62
Sure, but it's not what I normally do. polichick Apr 2014 #65
I don't think there's any shortage of pointing out hypocrisy on this board, or anywhere on the net. MADem Apr 2014 #70
True dat. polichick Apr 2014 #71
Yes I have...are you keeping score? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #68
Using the OP's "logic" does that mean the ACLU is libertarian and should be distrusted? n/t NOVA_Dem Apr 2014 #51
Does the ACLU agree with today's decision? pnwmom Apr 2014 #88
Does Greenwald dsc Apr 2014 #96
Good to know. Then I'm not renewing our membership. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #105
Of course, because if they can't say "It's Obama's fault!!!" it's no damn fun, you see. MADem Apr 2014 #61
Heroes every one of you Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #69
Hey...greenwald's getting a medal for courage...how timely of you! msanthrope Apr 2014 #118
You deserve it more Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #119
Poor Glenn...if he only had a brain...nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #120
My 10 year old laughed Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #122
Thank you Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2014 #75
Did they teach logic at your school? Marr Apr 2014 #4
Well, I would never post pictures of puppies on a spit. But we aren't talking about two different msanthrope Apr 2014 #8
Greenwald's opinions--however idiotic--are irrelevant to his role Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #26
+1 daleanime Apr 2014 #28
To fail to take into account the messenger means you've failed to critically msanthrope Apr 2014 #31
Ok, that settles it. They didn't teach logic at your school. Marr Apr 2014 #33
In an actual logic class, using Latin terms incorrectly only invokes laughter. msanthrope Apr 2014 #42
Oh my! A Jesuit, you say?? Marr Apr 2014 #49
That's not what an ad hominem is. I'm not discussing his views on the NSA. Haven't mentioned them, msanthrope Apr 2014 #53
Of course you did. Glance up the thread. Marr Apr 2014 #55
No...I never mentioned the NSA, only a general comment that one should take a messenger into account msanthrope Apr 2014 #84
This message was self-deleted by its author Marr Apr 2014 #87
Marr--I'm going to reply to your deleted post, since I had the window open.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #91
"So if you wanna go, I'm gonna suggest you bring more than the Wikipedia knife to this gunfight." Number23 Apr 2014 #100
The blue links stopped after that, didn't they? Maybe one day I'll get told who I actually msanthrope Apr 2014 #102
How do you know she's a witch? Build a bridge out of her! Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #109
Sloppy....you know it's a disservice to us all without the video. Bad form... msanthrope Apr 2014 #111
BINGO. eom BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #34
Yes but that's not the topic at hand. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2014 #77
It's the subtext of the topic at hand. Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #79
It's not the subtext of the OP--I thought GG was an asshole long ago.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #85
So, why are you bringing up this old quote now, as opposed to-- Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #89
Because I am rather interested on what a media conglomerate head has to say about corporate msanthrope Apr 2014 #92
GG's "secrets" = 1 FISA warrant + 1,000 tweets of FUD. ucrdem Apr 2014 #83
it makes for easy flame bait I suppose. Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #11
Actually, Glenn has been discrediting his stories without anyone's help Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #20
"I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses Hissyspit Apr 2014 #6
"But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities ... ProSense Apr 2014 #7
Yeah, that's highlighted in the OP Hissyspit Apr 2014 #21
So that's why he wants a billionaire to run???? msanthrope Apr 2014 #13
IKR!? Rex Apr 2014 #128
This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Apr 2014 #9
Should be possible to ban a corporation from publishing a book during an election campaign Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #10
I see your point, but I think CU is a travesty. I think the pushing of corporate personhood msanthrope Apr 2014 #15
Actually, Sir, It Certainly Should Be Banned From Doing So The Magistrate Apr 2014 #18
So Charles or David Koch should be permitted to publish anything they like in an election campaign, Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #27
What does publishing a book have to flooding the political process with money? ProSense Apr 2014 #29
This thread is actually about the Citizens United decision, as opposed to today's ruling. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #30
In Point Of Fact, Sir, That Is Pretty Much What Happens The Magistrate Apr 2014 #41
oh please. m-lekktor Apr 2014 #12
Welcome to DU!! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #17
Serious question Bragi Apr 2014 #19
Pretty fucking pathetic, huh whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #22
I thought I was a cryptofascistcorpratistauthoritarian? Or something? Stasi, maybe? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #23
Performance art Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #24
People dig up old "quotes" all the time. ProSense Apr 2014 #25
Yes, but they don't imply Greenwald is a member of the Libertarian Party as the OP does, Hissyspit Apr 2014 #35
Oh--I'm not implying. I'm stating forthrightly that Mr. Greenwald is a Libertarian. msanthrope Apr 2014 #44
Yes, I get that you don't care what the truth is. Hissyspit Apr 2014 #73
"Advertised as a Liberal." I wouldn't call that truth in advertising. Three Libertarians, on a msanthrope Apr 2014 #74
Yes, but according to his loyal flock around here at Democratic Underground, BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #37
Well, that sucks for them, then.. because ol greenwald is not above anything. Cha Apr 2014 #94
And yet they continue to try. BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #140
It is the most appropriate time to distinguish from Libertarians. joshcryer Apr 2014 #106
Courageous to the core. ucrdem Apr 2014 #32
Mr. Greenwald taking Koch money for writing whitepaper, and appearing at their msanthrope Apr 2014 #36
I'd prefer that he was simply being mercenary flamingdem Apr 2014 #39
He was wrong, and guess what, so was the ACLU which filed a brief in favor... joeybee12 Apr 2014 #38
When the ACLU accepts billionaire money to run a media conglomerate, I'll be more msanthrope Apr 2014 #46
K&R Jamaal510 Apr 2014 #40
K&R! BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #43
For those who don't get why this is being brought up Larry the Cable Dude Apr 2014 #45
Larry the Cable Dude is a republican who has appeared on Hannity to speak against the ACA. msanthrope Apr 2014 #47
Larry the Cable Guy is a funny comedian Larry the Cable Dude Apr 2014 #50
Larry the Cable guy is an unfunny, sexist, racist, and homphobic Republican. As for Mr. Greenwald, msanthrope Apr 2014 #54
Git Er Done! Bobbie Jo Apr 2014 #56
Greenwald and Larry the Cable Guy. I love DU. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #64
Disagree Larry the Cable Dude Apr 2014 #58
How fortunate for you that McCutcheon was decided today. Welcome to DU! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #59
So you disagree with this statement: SomethingFishy Apr 2014 #57
I don't think it was utterred in truth. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #60
Well I guess you win then SomethingFishy Apr 2014 #63
I'm sorry, but you seem rather upset that I answered your question outside of the binary msanthrope Apr 2014 #82
Seriously? Hissyspit Apr 2014 #80
Yes...I don't think Greenwald was telling the truth when he wrote that. I think he has no problem msanthrope Apr 2014 #81
I'm glad you didn't hold your breath Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #115
You know it is amazing how much people on DU know about this guy! Rex Apr 2014 #129
I am constantly astounded how many people he still can dupe... Spazito Apr 2014 #67
DU was on to him a long time ago--- msanthrope Apr 2014 #86
I agree, there are very few posters of note who are fooled... Spazito Apr 2014 #125
I'm just as flabbergasted, Spazito. BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #123
I agree, I think a few actually do not recognize the cognitive dissonance associated with Spazito Apr 2014 #126
I wouldn't give them that much deference. They damn well know the difference. BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #139
" they underestimate us at their peril." Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #142
EXACTLY!! how do you reason with people who think it is okay to criticize a Democratic Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #131
Your attempt at being cute failed, Dougie. So did your "reasoning" in your defense of a Libertarian BlueCaliDem Apr 2014 #138
I don't know what you are talking about? We need to expose all the frauds!! From Gary Hart and Jimmy Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #141
That was 2010. Octafish Apr 2014 #72
Thus my point--if he backed CU, he's going to be just fine with today's ruling if he's held msanthrope Apr 2014 #76
I am glad that Greenwald has an appreciation of the issues here. Vattel Apr 2014 #78
Hey thanks! Pholus Apr 2014 #90
I am sorry--are you suggesting that Greenwald didn't support the CU decision? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #93
I know I'm stating who the fuck cares. George W Bush supports sending money to Africa to fight Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #113
I guess your dogma demands "deeply ambivalent" means something else.. Pholus Apr 2014 #134
Hey guess what? Hitler and I both like dogs. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #112
Oh shit...now I love the NSA!!! U4ikLefty Apr 2014 #127
The NSA is cool, they have an indoor theme park! Rex Apr 2014 #130
I prefer ponies. U4ikLefty Apr 2014 #132
Tell me what the NSA has to do with this? I am bemused at those who think msanthrope Apr 2014 #135
Oh, he loves billionaires, proving that money really is speech in GG's case. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2014 #133
That Obama NSA climbdown really stung. Didn't it -> cprise Apr 2014 #136
What does Greenwald's views on the NSA have to do with CU? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #137
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"What the Supreme Co...»Reply #14