That doesn’t help much. CU and other SCOTUS rulings have backed the concept that money is speech. Which is just as 
as corporate personhood, but hey.
1 Like
Depends on how one interprets “freedom of the press”.
If the meaning of that language is the freedom to publish and disseminate information by anyone, then any individual or organization, regardless of how legally structured, may distribute books or movies or web pages without government restriction, subject only to the libel and copyright laws. (edit: or any laws covering the unauthorized distribution of classified defense or personal health and financial information)
If the meaning of the language is that particular organizations, specifically defined/designated as
"THE PRESS"
may do those things, while the rest of the USA, not defined as
"THE PRESS"
is subject to regulation and limitation, then Citizens United was improperly decided.
Yeah, I think you got me. My interpretation of freedom of the press is not the interpretation of freedom of the press taken by the US courts in general, from what I’m reading. They say it basically just means the right to write down what you are saying. That interpretation seems nuts to me for two reasons:
- That is covered in it’s entirety by freedom of expression, meaning “freedom of the press” is interpreted as a redundant, empty phrase - which is presumably why it isn’t mentioned in the UN declaration of human rights
- The amendment says, “and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable” - it is plainly talking about the freedom of the news media and is in direct response to the British clamping down on American newspapers
Just another place where I think the US courts are weird (though this weirdness has been going on a long time, it’s not from 2010).
But regardless, my point that the government can always go after corporations by changing laws government corporations (including simply defining some corporations out of existences) stands. I wouldn’t be impressed* if the Trump administration used legal machinations to annihilate the New York Times, but unless freedom of the press is interpreted as freedom of the news media, I wouldn’t think they had a first amendment case against it. The first amendment can’t right all wrongs, and I feel like trying to make it right all wrongs leads to this nonsense whether corporations get the rights of people but not the responsibilities of people (i.e. they can’t be charged with murder).
I don’t think anything is lost by “taking away” human rights from corporations and I think a lot is gained.
* Understatement
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
