Export thread

Rant Spinoff Thread - Corporations and Free Speech

#1

strawman

strawman

Ah, the joys of socialism and giving international organizations more power over nations.


#2

Dave

Dave

Ah, the joys of socialism and giving international organizations more power over nations.
As opposed to our capitalist society giving all of our domestic organizations more power over us?


#3

GasBandit

GasBandit

As opposed to our capitalist society giving all of our domestic organizations more power over us?
Yeah, wake me when they're confiscating 10% of your after tax wealth. Actually, you won't have to because the howling and sharpening of pitchforks will do it just fine.


#4

strawman

strawman

As opposed to our capitalist society giving all of our domestic organizations more power over us?
What power have you lost that was given to a corporation? I'm intrigued.


#5

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

What power have you lost that was given to a corporation? I'm intrigued.
Free Speech. The Vote for a President. Immortality.


#6

Tress

Tress

What power have you lost that was given to a corporation? I'm intrigued.
I don't really want to get into this argument, but I could say that the Citizen's United decision gave corporations a huge increase in power via their ability to now blatantly buy elections. At least they had to work to corrupt elections before, but PACs allow corporations to spend unlimited money influencing how people vote. This takes power from average citizens, who can't compete monetarily.


#7

GasBandit

GasBandit

Free Speech. The Vote for a President. Immortality.
Really? You've been disenfranchised AND imprisoned for political speech? And I'm seriously grumpy that apparently there was Immortality going around when my grandma really could have used it, prior to the corporations taking it away.


#8

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Really? You've been disenfranchised AND imprisoned for political speech? And I'm seriously grumpy that apparently there was Immortality going around when my grandma really could have used it, prior to the corporations taking it away.
Not imprisoned, but my speech is only worth about $100.00 per election cycle, and corporations can now give unlimited speech to the candidate of their choice. When SCOTUS made corporations so powerful, they were not given an expiration date, like I have.


#9

PatrThom

PatrThom

apparently there was Immortality going around when my grandma really could have used it, prior to the corporations taking it away.
Corporations can be immortal. Natural persons cannot.

--Patrick


#10

GasBandit

GasBandit

Not imprisoned, but my speech is only worth about $100.00 per election cycle, and corporations can now give unlimited speech to the candidate of their choice.
That's a deliberate falsehood. Freedom of speech is more than just monetary campaign contriubutions, and so are elections.


#11

strawman

strawman

They didn't take immortality away. Nor did they take away free speech. In neither case did you have something prior to corporations existing that you now no longer have.


#12

MindDetective

MindDetective

That's a deliberate falsehood. Freedom of speech is more than just monetary campaign contriubutions, and so are elections.
Sure, but the degrees of freedom (pun intended) is significantly different depending upon money access. Thus, it is easy to conclude that some are more free than others with their speech.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518072,1381517905][/DOUBLEPOST]
They didn't take immortality away. Nor did they take away free speech. In neither case did you have something prior to corporations existing that you now no longer have.
Well, I agree on the immortality, but a person's ability to communicate their message is directly dependent on the degree of noise already in the system. Granting any one entity a louder voices subsequently reduces the voices of others in relation. Note, I am making a relative argument here, not an absolute one.


#13

GasBandit

GasBandit

Sure, but the degrees of freedom (pun intended) is significantly different depending upon money access. Thus, it is easy to conclude that some are more free than others with their speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean equal access to megaphones, it means not being imprisoned for expressing views those in power don't like.


#14

strawman

strawman

Well, I agree on the immortality, but a person's ability to communicate their message is directly dependent on the degree of noise already in the system. Granting any one entity a louder voices subsequently reduces the voices of others in relation. Note, I am making a relative argument here, not an absolute one.
We should really adopt a one cod policy like china, then, because obviously creating more Americans deprives you of your rights.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518272,1381518226][/DOUBLEPOST]Hehehe.

Cod --> child.

I have seven fish at home! Won't someone think of the fish?!


#15

MindDetective

MindDetective

Freedom of speech doesn't mean equal access to megaphones, it means not being imprisoned for expressing views those in power don't like.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The key term to define here is "without interference'. I post that the presence of many louder, shouting voices may constitute interference.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518347,1381518296][/DOUBLEPOST]
We should really adopt a one cod policy like china, then, because obviously creating more Americans deprives you of your rights.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518272,1381518226][/DOUBLEPOST]Hehehe.

Cod --> child.

I have seven fish at home! Won't someone think of the fish?!
Incrementally, but the equation is balanced because individuals are notably equal. Corporations and people are less notably so.


#16

strawman

strawman

I don't know about that. Any single person with a few million could affect the process of free speech as much as a corporation. I don't think this is necessarily a corporate vs citizen thing so much as a citizen vs wealthy citizen, or citizen vs group of citizens united to a cause.

While there is a wealth divide, would you claim that if a hundred people got together, donated to one issue, and promoted their cause took away your right to speak your mind through dilution?

If not, what is the difference with a corporation, which is really just a group of people united to making money, who may also use that money, as a group, to promote causes that they want to pursue?


#17

GasBandit

GasBandit

The key term to define here is "without interference'. I post that the presence of many louder, shouting voices may constitute interference.
You're quoting the UN Declaration of Human rights, for those watching at home. I posit that here, interference is not an engineering term describing signal/noise ratio, but rather active denial through deliberate human effort of the ability to express thought.

And frankly, as long as the government's not putting them up to it to drown you out specifically, it's everybody else's right to shout, too.


#18

MindDetective

MindDetective

I don't know about that. Any single person with a few million could affect the process of free speech as much as a corporation. I don't think this is necessarily a corporate vs citizen thing so much as a citizen vs wealthy citizen, or citizen vs group of citizens united to a cause.

While there is a wealth divide, would you claim that if a hundred people got together, donated to one issue, and promoted their cause took away your right to speak your mind through dilution?

If not, what is the difference with a corporation, which is really just a group of people united to making money, who may also use that money, as a group, to promote causes that they want to pursue?
Actually, I would say that that hundred people does dilute the speech of others (again, incrementally). The same with the wealthy person. In both cases they marginally infringe on the speech of others in society by speaking with a louder bullhorn. This is also true of those that control the bullhorn (news outlets, for example, or even the press secretary of the President). It seems to me the key difference between your two examples is that the 100 people came to a definitive agreement to speak in unison. I suspect it is quite uncommon that corporations solicit their employees for agreement on an issue before advocating one way or another. Thus, a handful of higher-ups can leverage a very loud message without any organized consent of the people they are (in your example) said to represent.


#19

GasBandit

GasBandit

So remember when this thread was about minor rants? Yeah, I spilled some sweet and sour sauce on my shirt at lunch and now it's a little sticky.


#20

MindDetective

MindDetective

You're quoting the UN Declaration of Human rights, for those watching at home. I posit that here, interference is not an engineering term describing signal/noise ratio, but rather active denial through deliberate human effort of the ability to express thought.

And frankly, as long as the government's not putting them up to it to drown you out specifically, it's everybody else's right to shout, too.
I borrow from engineering, sure, but I forward it as one method of interference, not the only one. People can be drowned out, basically, such that their voice is no longer heard. You can be imprisoned by the noise of the loud. And in today's world, the wealthiest are the loudest.


#21

GasBandit

GasBandit

I borrow from engineering, sure, but I forward it as one method of interference, not the only one. People can be drowned out, basically, such that their voice is no longer heard. You can be imprisoned by the noise of the loud. And in today's world, the wealthiest are the loudest.
Yes, and it is not an infringement of the right to speak that others can speak louder. The idea is everybody has a right to enter the race, not everybody has the right to win. That's why we don't tie weights to faster runners at track meets.


#22

strawman

strawman

But you have the same opportunity to wield that leverage for your message too, and without becoming a corporation. Further, you can incorporate, and have all the privileges and obligations they have as well.

I still assert that the presence of the corporation doesn't take something from you that you had before in terms of free speech. Perhaps wealth does this, but corporations do not.

Besides which, free speech never guaranteed a forum or an equal speaking opportunity to anyone else. It simply guarantees you won't be thrown in jail for expresses of free speech.

So your free speech still belongs to you, and if it's less effective than it used to be, you are responsible for raising your message to the level of others. It's not their responsibility to be quiet enough that your efforts, no matter how small, are still significant.


#23

MindDetective

MindDetective

I still assert that the presence of the corporation doesn't take something from you that you had before in terms of free speech. Perhaps wealth does this, but corporations do not.
This is absolutely about money. The entire decision in question was about money. Corporations as a legal entity are not the crux of the discussion in any way. Corporations simply have a lot of money on hand. The question is, who's voice is speaking with that money? If it is an individual, or a group 100 citizens who have all agreed on a message, that is an easier question to answer than if it is a corporation.[DOUBLEPOST=1381520001,1381519820][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yes, and it is not an infringement of the right to speak that others can speak louder. The idea is everybody has a right to enter the race, not everybody has the right to win. That's why we don't tie weights to faster runners at track meets.
Nor do we give them a head start. Let's say that hypothetically that the government granted all people with the name Finkle free advertising privileges. Yours are not removed at all, but all the Finkles of world can speak louder than you, and more often. Now we have a situation where some are more free than others.


#24

GasBandit

GasBandit

Nor do we give them a head start. Let's say that hypothetically that the government granted all people with the name Finkle free advertising privileges. Yours are not removed at all, but all the Finkles of world can speak louder than you, and more often. Now we have a situation where some are more free than others.
I'm not sure I'm following your analogy here. Are you saying the government is picking certain people to make rich?


#25

MindDetective

MindDetective

I'm not sure I'm following your analogy here. Are you saying the government is picking certain people to make rich?
No, the analogy doesn't have to do with the selection part, it is the unevenness of freedoms part.


#26

GasBandit

GasBandit

No, the analogy doesn't have to do with the selection part, it is the unevenness of freedoms part.
Well, additional money gives more "freedom" in all things... the rich are more freely able to travel, to eat better food, more freely able to decide where to live and so on and so forth. The guarantee of freedom of speech is not the guarantee of equal speech - it's simply freedom from persecution by government for speech.


#27

MindDetective

MindDetective

Well, additional money gives more "freedom" in all things... the rich are more freely able to travel, to eat better food, more freely able to decide where to live and so on and so forth.
Sure, all things being equal, that is something we can live with. However, corporations are definitely not equal to individuals. Any organization, including the government and corporations, has more ability inherently to suppress or oppress individuals than another individual has. Granting corporations greater freedom (in this case through monetary access to speech) than individuals enables them to enact that inherent ability with more leverage.[DOUBLEPOST=1381523896,1381523504][/DOUBLEPOST]If you'd like to address the language in the first amendment...

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.
...my argument hinges on the word "abridging", in that granting corporations (which leverage finances far beyond the wealthiest individuals) greater access to free speech than even the wealthy can manage, it curtails the individuals' right.[DOUBLEPOST=1381523961][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, any mods that feel so inclined, pull out this discussion into its own thread, if you like.[DOUBLEPOST=1381524009][/DOUBLEPOST]Oops, too slow.


#28

Eriol

Eriol

The crux of the issue is Corporate Personhood. They shouldn't be. At all. Legal entities of a sort, but with much fewer privileges than a legal Person. You guys need an amendment to do that though.


#29

GasBandit

GasBandit

I could live with corporations not being treated as individuals for campaign contribution purposes, but if those same argument just extend to a rich individual, I wouldn't be on board with the idea that someone having more money than someone else constitutes an inherent unfairness when it comes to freedom of speech.

And I could definitely live with less corporations buying tons of discounted political advertising every 4 years, but that's a personal gripe about my industry.


#30

MindDetective

MindDetective

I could live with corporations not being treated as individuals for campaign contribution purposes, but if those same argument just extend to a rich individual, I wouldn't be on board with the idea that someone having more money than someone else constitutes an inherent unfairness when it comes to freedom of speech.

And I could definitely live with less corporations buying tons of discounted political advertising every 4 years, but that's a personal gripe about my industry.
Well, I'm not one to make a slippery slope argument. I think demarking at the distinction between corporation and individual person is satisfying enough to me for the purposes of this debate. Let a wealthy individual squander their fortune for a loud megaphone.


#31

Eriol

Eriol

Well, I'm not one to make a slippery slope argument. I think demarking at the distinction between corporation and individual person is satisfying enough to me for the purposes of this debate. Let a wealthy individual squander their fortune for a loud megaphone.
I'm against that too. IMO, the system in Canada has its flaws, but is better than many alternatives. You can contribute up to $1000/year per person to a political party or candidate of your choice. And that's all they can accept either. There can be other fundraisers (not 100% on how that works) but you are limited to that. Often people with families/children have their "children" contribute too, but it's still a very small amount. Political advertising spending DURING election cycles (ours are distinct, 40 days prior to the voting date) can only occur by registered candidates/parties, and also subject to strict limits. People have challenged this, saying it muzzles others, like corporations, but even more significantly, advocacy groups (unions, what you'd call "PACs" and others), but I'd say that it's worth the upside of not having 24/7 political ads, as well as having big spending ruling the day.

Imagine that in the USA: contributions limited to $1000/person. And that's it. And no corporate donations at all. And no 3rd-parties can advertise at all during the "blackout" period. How would your system change? You actually need a lot of people contributing to run a campaign at all, rather than rich benefactors (this goes for both of your major parties). There are a few downsides, but ultimately, a lot better than what was before up here, and better what you have now as well.


#32

GasBandit

GasBandit

I'm against that too. IMO, the system in Canada has its flaws, but is better than many alternatives. You can contribute up to $1000/year per person to a political party or candidate of your choice. And that's all they can accept either. There can be other fundraisers (not 100% on how that works) but you are limited to that. Often people with families/children have their "children" contribute too, but it's still a very small amount. Political advertising spending DURING election cycles (ours are distinct, 40 days prior to the voting date) can only occur by registered candidates/parties, and also subject to strict limits. People have challenged this, saying it muzzles others, like corporations, but even more significantly, advocacy groups (unions, what you'd call "PACs" and others), but I'd say that it's worth the upside of not having 24/7 political ads, as well as having big spending ruling the day.

Imagine that in the USA: contributions limited to $1000/person. And that's it. And no corporate donations at all. And no 3rd-parties can advertise at all during the "blackout" period. How would your system change? You actually need a lot of people contributing to run a campaign at all, rather than rich benefactors (this goes for both of your major parties). There are a few downsides, but ultimately, a lot better than what was before up here, and better what you have now as well.
Thing is, there's ways for the wealthy to get around such things. It's easy to set up an independent PAC with an issue-based agenda that can then run its own political programming/advertisements that don't necessarily endorse one candidate or another, but do espouse a certain viewpoint that only stops just short of doing so. There's no real way to effectively police such things on individuals without it becoming a de facto violation of free speech.


#33

Shakey

Shakey

Imagine that in the USA: contributions limited to $1000/person. And that's it. And no corporate donations at all. And no 3rd-parties can advertise at all during the "blackout" period. How would your system change? You actually need a lot of people contributing to run a campaign at all, rather than rich benefactors (this goes for both of your major parties). There are a few downsides, but ultimately, a lot better than what was before up here, and better what you have now as well.
I might actually be able to stomach watching broadcast TV during campaign season again...


#34

Eriol

Eriol

Thing is, there's ways for the wealthy to get around such things. It's easy to set up an independent PAC with an issue-based agenda that can then run its own political programming/advertisements that don't necessarily endorse one candidate or another, but do espouse a certain viewpoint that only stops just short of doing so. There's no real way to effectively police such things on individuals without it becoming a de facto violation of free speech.
Yes that's true, but 1. They can pour as much money as they want into existing PACs anyways, so let them, and 2. PACs can't advertise AT ALL during the 40-day election cycle. So even if they do pour their money into such things, they are rendered impotent during the most critical days. I won't stop political discourse under any guise during the "off-season" but approaching critical, they are de-fanged. If they want to advertise still, then let them register as a party and observe the same finance & advertising rules as everybody else.

It really is pretty damned hard to get around the way it is legislated up here.


#35

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I could live with corporations not being treated as individuals for campaign contribution purposes, but if those same argument just extend to a rich individual, I wouldn't be on board with the idea that someone having more money than someone else constitutes an inherent unfairness when it comes to freedom of speech.

And I could definitely live with less corporations buying tons of discounted political advertising every 4 years, but that's a personal gripe about my industry.
I can live with rich individuals being off the table. At least when they donate, it's very clear who is giving and why. But corporations, PACs, and Super PACs just cloud the issue and allow people to conceal their support (to avoid political blowback). Force people to stand by their views. No more of this back room bullshit.


#36

PatrThom

PatrThom

Sorry for the discontinuity, the thread got pruned before I managed to submit my post.
But you have the same opportunity to wield that leverage for your message too, and without becoming a corporation. Further, you can incorporate, and have all the privileges and obligations they have as well. I still assert that the presence of the corporation doesn't take something from you that you had before in terms of free speech. Perhaps wealth does this, but corporations do not.
Correct. It's more a matter of influence, really. It's not "all corporations are evil," just that the pooling of resources can sway elections.
One person is supposed to equal exactly one vote.
All of these votes are supposed to be exactly the same size. And they are.
But...
Spending money will influence the number of people who vote. This could be done by blatantly paying people to vote one way or another (bribery), or by lobbying to get some sort of discriminatory barrier to voting erected (poll taxes, qualification tests). It can also be done indirectly through crowding out other candidates, the same way a guy who doesn't want his view of the valley spoiled can do so by buying up all the adjacent properties to prevent others from moving in, or through negative propaganda/smear campaign, or through astroturfing.

I'm sure everyone would be happier if stupid people didn't vote. The trouble is, everyone seems stupid to everyone else, and everyone thinks their ideas are the best, but even stupid people are supposed to be guaranteed a vote by the US Constitution (and its amendments). That's why it's a democracy.
Besides which, free speech never guaranteed a forum or an equal speaking opportunity to anyone else. It simply guarantees you won't be thrown in jail for expresses of free speech. So your free speech still belongs to you, and if it's less effective than it used to be, you are responsible for raising your message to the level of others. It's not their responsibility to be quiet enough that your efforts, no matter how small, are still significant.
If I am still able. Any group with enough power can squelch those without, using the same sorts of tactics that oil barons used to drive independent gas stations out of business. Me and my ideals are of no consequence unless I start building enough of a following to threaten the status quo, at which point someone will no doubt wish to speak with me.

--Patrick


#37

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

what the fuck is this thread


#38

PatrThom

PatrThom

what the fuck is this thread
It's mostly about shades of corporate personhood, and also about the justifications of varying sorts of influence, but there was also a moment where @GasBandit accidentally baptized himself with corn syrup and vinegar.

--Patrick


#39

GasBandit

GasBandit

It's mostly about shades of corporate personhood, and also about the justifications of varying sorts of influence, but there was also a moment where @GasBandit accidentally baptized himself with corn syrup and vinegar.

--Patrick
Whoo, don't knock it till you try it.


#40

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

i'm too drunk to taste this chicken


#41

GasBandit

GasBandit

i'm too drunk to taste this chicken
And too chicken to taste that Drunk?


#42

LordRendar

LordRendar

Tastes like cheap whiskey and bad decisions.


#43

Bowielee

Bowielee

Tastes like cheap whiskey and bad decisions.
For me, it's Merlot and regret.


#44

Krisken

Krisken

Miller Genuine Draft and disappointment.


#45

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Miller Genuine Draft and disappointment.
Just like Nick's prom night?


#46

Krisken

Krisken

Just like Nick's prom night?
If I had been a drinker back then, more like my prom night. Then again, I was perpetually disappointed at that age.


#47

GasBandit

GasBandit

Jim Beam and unquenchable rage.


#48

Terrik

Terrik

Corona and good times


#49

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

what the fuck is this thread


#50

Bubble181

Bubble181

Whiskey-coke and I cdon't remember how I got home yesterday.

Wait, this isn't the "I got drunk" thread? Had me fooled.

Anyway, this argument boils down to the same as in many other aspects of (US) society organization. On the one hand, all the freedom for all, but on the other hand, how do you make sure everybody can keep being free?

Having limits in place evens the field, but may be limiting some people's freedom. Not limiting anything at all may seem extremely free, but will inherently devolve into some form of bullying/dictatorship/silencing of the weak/poor/stupid/black/female/whathaveyou.

of course, if you really truly believe it will evolve naturally into the biggest and strongest silencing the weak and the small, you feel the need for some form ofp rotection of those weaker/smaller/poorer, since equality is pretty important to the American ideal of freedom. On the other hand, if you feel there's autocorrection and autobalancing; with the poor and weak joining together to overthrow the bigger/stronger or whatever, you feel that there's no need for limits or checks in the system - quite the contrary, as such systems may slow down the correction or rebalance and, perhaps, institutionalize or cement inequalities.


#51

PatrThom

PatrThom

This looked like the most appropriate thread.

“.sucks” registrations begin soon—at up to $2,500 per domain

You can read more about it at Vox Populi's main site, where they paint the idea as one where anyone will have the ability to voice their pet concern(s) in a public forum where other like-minded individuals will be able to find them.
However, some are calling this outright extortion, since the domains are artificially restricted and priced artificially high and it's expected that corporations themselves will probably be the ones most interested in buying up the domains to ensure John Q. Public doesn't set up a website just like the one I describe above. At 2500 per, it only takes 400 buyers to hit a cool million.

--Patrick


Top