[excon]

Hello:

Do corporations enjoy a right to free speech? If they do, where might I find it?

excon

[tomder55]

In Paul v. Virginia(1869) the doctrine, was established that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the term as used in the Comity Cause also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause .
Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

To my knowledge that part of the ruling has never been successfully challenged .

I'm sure there is a specific point to this question .That will be revealed in a follow-up response.

[excon]

I'm sure there is a specific point to this question .That will be revealed in a followup response.

Hello again, tom:

Not really - and maybe. I don't know much about it, but a case is coming up about a corporations making of a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton WHEN she was running for president.

My question was whether a corporation - ANY corporation - can make political speech. Or should they just stick to making widjets?

In my view, we as INDIVIDUALS have free speech rights. Corportations aren't people, they aren't citizens and they can't vote. Therefore, it would appear to ME that corporations don't have Constitutional rights.

excon

[tomder55]

Yes but I'm reading further and this is indeed a fascinating debatable question with opinions differing going back to the Jefferson\Hamilton disputes .

Most recently in a dispute between Blackwater and the City Of San Diego over a COA ,a judge ruled that Blackwater is a person and has a right to due process under the law .

[excon]

Most recently in a dispute between Blackwater and the City Of San Diego over a COA ,a judge ruled that Blackwater is a person and has a right to due process under the law .

Hello again, tom:

Clearly, this courthouse is located too closely to a medical marijuana dispensary.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Let me ask you this. If a corporation DOES have free speech rights, WHO does the corporation speak for for?

The stockholders? The managers? The workers??

excon

[NeedKarma]

Don't most news shows have opinion segments? Isn't the opinion expressed solely from the individual?

[excon]

Hello NK:

Very interesting questions...

When a news commentator states his opinion, he's not excercising HIS free speech rights. He's speaking for the corporation that hires him.

That's my view. If it WERE his free speech rights, then I should be able to go on his show and express MY free speech rights - and they won't let me do that.

excon

[tomder55]

The closest this issue came to a SCOTUS ruling was the Nike v. Kasky case . Evidently commercial speech is not regarded as free speech per se . But it does have some Constitutional protection under current standards.

Nike was defending itself against claims about it's overseas labor practices and it was claimed they were lying in their defense.

The California Supreme Court concluded that Nike's statements were "commercial speech," and could be punished if they were false or misleading.If there was true corporate free speech they could make any statement they liked regardless of veracity.

Initially SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal ; but later refused to decide it.

It appears to me that under current laws the corporation is entitled to full political speech rights (subject only to the unconstitional campaign finance laws ) ;but only has limitted commercial free speech rights.

[speechlesstx]

I don't know much about corporate free speech (other than many of those networks have disclaimers something to the effect of "the opinions expressed by so and so are those of so and so and may not reflect the opinions of staff and management of said network"). Anyway, the California Speaker doesn't know why we let politicians be terrorized by free speech.

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.

I'm sure it's only unfair for conservatives to "terrorize" politicians with free speech.

[tomder55]

And even worse ;hold them accountable at the ballot box . Oh the terror!!

[ETWolverine]

I often hear TV or radio programs that are airing an opinion piece lead it with a disclosure/disclaimer that the opinions being aired are not necessarily the opinions of the show, the producers or the network/station that is airing it. That leads me to believe that, at least in those cases, the opinions are solely those of the person giving his opinion.

If we assume that corporations are NOT "people" in the sense that they have no free speech, what does that say about non-corporate entities, not for profit corporations, charities, and other organizations (with or without a political agenda or mission)? What does it say about lobbying firms, political action committies, political thinktanks and other similar organizations? (ACORN for example. AIPAC for another.)

This is an interesting question.

Elliot

[excon]

It appears to me that under current laws the corporation is entitled to full political speech rights (subject only to the unconstitional campaign finance laws ) ;but only has limitted commercial free speech rights.

Hello again, tom:

Then I ask again, who, within the corporation, does the corporation speak for? If it's for management, then I'd say those citizens, who have no MORE free speech rights than I do, are unfairly using their jobs as a megaphone to, in fact, GET more free speech rights than I have.

That, to me, is unconstitutional. If the corporation wishes to democratically elect the position it speaks to, then it would seem to be Constitutional. But, they're not going to do that.

I think they should stick to making widgets, and leave the politics to citizens who are PEOPLE.

excon

[tomder55]

Well then you disagree with the founders who's only dispute with the notion was if the corporation had rights across state lines.
I guess your position also holds true for not for profit corportations ,various incorporated interests groups like ET pointed out ,universities ,etc.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

Then I ask again, who, within the corporation, does the corporation speak for? If it's for management, then I'd say those citizens, who have no MORE free speech rights than I do, are unfairly using their jobs as a megaphone to, in fact, GET more free speech rights than I have.

That, to me, is unconstitutional. If the corporation wishes to democratically elect the position it speaks to, then it would seem to be Constitutional. But, they're not gonna do that.

I think they should stick to making widgets, and leave the politics to citizens who are PEOPLE.

excon

Whoah there, cowboy. I think you need to reign in a bit, cause that horse you're on is starting to bolt on you.

Do corporations get free airtime? Last I heard, you had to pay for TV airtime. You have just as much right to buy TV time as they do, and with free access TV, you have the same ability to air your opinions as they do. What part of a corporation having free speech rights in the political arena is unconstitutional?

It seems to me you are going back to the old saw of "it's not fair".

Boo hoo.

I never heard that life was supposed to be fair.

The Constitution isn't there to make life fair. It is there to protect our individual rights, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that a corporation may have free speech rights doesn't in any way limit YOUR free speech rights. This is, therefore, not a Constitutional issue.

If it WERE a Constitutional issue, then political parties would also be prevented from having political free speech... despite the fact that political parties were created for the purpose of promoting a political agenda in the public venue. After all, what is the difference between a corporation and a political party?

There's something wrong with your argument, excon.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Ex suppose a corporation wrote and published a book promoting a political opinion . Would it have or not have a right to publish ?

[speechlesstx]

Ex suppose a corporation wrote and published a book promoting a political opinion . Would it have or not have a right to publish ?

Excellent question.

[excon]

Ex suppose a corporation wrote and published a book promoting a political opinion . Would it have or not have a right to publish ?

Hello tom:

Corporations don't write books. The PERSON, or PEOPLE who wrote it could do with it what he/they wants.

Corporations don't vote either. That's because they're not citizens.

excon

[tomder55]

Advocacy groups ;foundations,think tanks... corporations all... of all political persuasions like the Wilson Institute ,the Soros Foundation ,Heritage Foundation publish all types of books ,research papers ,editorial opinions . Again ;do they have a Constitutional right to publish ?

[speechlesstx]

Moveon offers a book or two. I'm sure there are no political opinions in those.