Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

The Supreme Court did not say that corporations are people.
The court said that the first amendment applies to everyone, natural person or juridical person, corporation, NFP corporation, unincorporated associations, etc.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Note that it doesn't say who has the right, it merely says what Congress may not do. The SCOTUS decided that, since it doesn't mention to whom it applies, it applies to everyone.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

You can call a corporation a person, but that doesn't make it one. When a corporation does something terribly illegal, including murder, is it put to death ? No. (Witness Shell Oil in Nigeria.) If it were a person, it might very well be.

Can a corporation (not its employee) get into a car and drive it ? No.
Can a corporation (not its employee) paint pictures or compose music ? No.
Can a corporation (not its employee) teach school ? No.

KW Conch Loc: USA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Nobody , except you, is calling a corporation a person. I haven't, the SCOTUS hasn't, and I don't know anyone who has.
This idea that the SCOTUS called corporations "persons," for the purposes of the first amendment, is simply not true.
Your examples are really not on point.
Corporations can, however, exercise free speech. If they couldn't, labor unions, the Sierra Club, ACT for America, PAW, churches, the VFW couldn't either. Is it your contention that only individual people have the right to free speech?

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I guess you hadn't pulled your head out of the sand (or somewhere else ?) when in the last Presidential elections Romney stated very clearly that "Corporations are people." I don't know who the other dozen are, but you must be one of about 13 in the country that didn't hear that and make note of it. This was one of his major mistakes in the campaign. About this one you are simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Last I heard, Romney wasn't on the SC. Since that's what we were discussing, you're way off base. But as to CU, the ACLU agrees with my reading of the case. That's why they filed an amicus urging the court to hold the way they did.
But you believe what you want, don't let facts bother you.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Romney certainly does not speak for the SCOTUS. He is an individual, he uttered some other misspeaks during his campaign as well. Romney made an attempt for people to see past the corporate identity of a corporation and understand that issues which effect corporations can effect 1000's even 100's of thousands of people who work for the corporation, hold their stocks, or even in some cases consumers who purchase their products. I think that kombiguy made excellent points, SCOTUS did not say that corps were people but they did say that they have the right to free speech, I don't disagree with that statement, they have as much of a right to free speech as do the interest groups that Kombiguy mentions in his post. The personhood of corporations was really a talking point of the campaign that the democrats exploited for the less aware in our society. Those who feel that all corps are owned and run by the boogieman.

Zenith701 Loc: Southern California

Check out United States foreign intelligence Surveillance Court, on Wikipedia. This whole thing goes clear back to the 70s. This court is supposed to protect US citizens from unwarranted surveillance. Yeah right. I never heard of them before. It's surprising what you don't know sometimes

jvo Loc: left coast of the east coast

the terrorists have won!

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Government snooping and data collecting has been going on a lot longer than since the overwhelmingly bi-partisan Patriot Act was signed. Of course, technological advances have enabled such gathering to be significantly more far reached, easier, and perhaps better hidden.

I remember vividly the day the World Trade Towers came down and would give up privacy, to an extent, simply on the chance that another such incident could be prevented. We have little if any privacy anymore anyway, whether one is going into a hospital, seeing a doctor, surfing the net, walking down the street, or filing for a tax exempt status. Unless specific abuse regarding the collecting of phone record data is found, I do not find the collection of such information a threat. Just my humble current opinion on a complex matter.


The terrorists will have only won when the hands of our policing and investigatory agencies are needlessly tied, spurned by media frenzy and premature conclusions. I tend to consider the hundreds of government employees pouring over data everyday, in an attempt to keep us safe, as heroes, rather than a disgruntled or fame hungry individual exposing secrets to our enemies. 8-)