Gary Johnson Libertarian Nominee

[Skyth]

It has everything to do with corporate personhood. Without corporate personhood the 1st amendment does not apply to corporations. SRW would have the right to publish her book, but she's have to find an individual rather than a corporation that had a press; and a bunch of individuals to sell it rather than bookstore that is incorporated. That is why the govt attempt to ban the showing of a movie was shot down by the Supreme Court.

You could always get rid of corporate personhood and then explicitly list the rights that corporations (And the people that run corporations) have.

The biggest thing is that currently, the more money you have, the more 'rights' you have as far as speach is concerned. Corporations have the most money, thus the most 'rights'. That is a problem with the current political environment.

As a side note, the government can already ban publication of a book or movie for several reasons.

[drekfletch]

You could always get rid of corporate personhood

Personally, I'd rather get rid of incorporation as a legal state of existence.

[SunflowerP]

I think you know where this is going and don't want to be caught out as a hypocrite.

Good faith: you believe that you see inconsistencies in my position, and you point them out so that I can address them, either by further explicating my position and demonstrating that they're not inconsistent, or by reconsidering my position.

Bad faith: you believe that you see inconsistencies in my position, and contrive questions designed to entrap me in those inconsistencies, thus revealing me as a hypocrite.

Why the hell would I go along with what's all too obviously the latter?

Aside from that, no, I didn't know where you were going. Your later posts are more informative; those I will answer, but as of this writing cannot do so as they involve a point of (US) law on which I'm insufficiently clear, and must first consult a law librarian. (Since said law librarian is due to make his regular nightly phone call in a few minutes, I won't have time to respond until after that even if I don't mention the point of law in our convo.)

Sunflower

[sailor]

Good faith: you believe that you see inconsistencies in my position, and you point them out so that I can address them, either by further explicating my position and demonstrating that they're not inconsistent, or by reconsidering my position.



Bad faith: you believe that you see inconsistencies in my position, and contrive questions designed to entrap me in those inconsistencies, thus revealing me as a hypocrite.

Why the hell would I go along with what's all too obviously the latter?

Aside from that, no, I didn't know where you were going. Your later posts are more informative; those I will answer, but as of this writing cannot do so as they involve a point of (US) law on which I'm insufficiently clear, and must first consult a law librarian. (Since said law librarian is due to make his regular nightly phone call in a few minutes, I won't have time to respond until after that even if I don't mention the point of law in our convo.)

Sunflower

Good faith, you answer the simple questions so I know I"m getting good faith answers.

[sailor]

You could always get rid of corporate personhood and then explicitly list the rights that corporations (And the people that run corporations) have.

The biggest thing is that currently, the more money you have, the more 'rights' you have as far as speach is concerned. Corporations have the most money, thus the most 'rights'. That is a problem with the current political environment.

As a side note, the government can already ban publication of a book or movie for several reasons.

Aside from the difficulty of actually getting a Constitutional amendment passed, it sounds like it would have to be really long and complex unless you are willing to remove all constitional protections from corporations.

If you try and do it by legislation, what can be done can be undone and can be selectively undone.

Do you have a citation of books banned in the US at the Federal (or even state) level in the past 40 years where courts have upheld the ban? Not books that have been banned from public or school libraries; and not books that have been banned for actual fraudulent claims (Wikipedia lists one title).

Ditto for movies.

[sailor]

Personally, I'd rather get rid of incorporation as a legal state of existence.

That is easy. There would be some major downsides and transition issues, but one upside would be the elimination of banks that "are to big to fail".

[Skyth]

Personally, I'd rather get rid of incorporation as a legal state of existence.

Incorporation is a very valid form of business used to raise capital. Getting rid of it would have drastic effects on the economy.

[Skyth]

Do you have a citation of books banned in the US at the Federal (or even state) level in the past 40 years where courts have upheld the ban? Not books that have been banned from public or school libraries; and not books that have been banned for actual fraudulent claims (Wikipedia lists one title).

Ditto for movies.

Actually, I was talking about books that are banned for fraudulent claims, plus books that contain classified information.

[Owl]

Incorporation is a very valid form of business used to raise capital. Getting rid of it would have drastic effects on the economy.

It's also a good business form for unrelated people to go into business together - not all corporations are publicly traded. It is more structured than a partnership and that can be a good thing.

[Darkhawk]

It's also a good business form for unrelated people to go into business together - not all corporations are publicly traded. It is more structured than a partnership and that can be a good thing.

And it distinctly separates the assets of the company from the assets of its owners, which means that, for example, if the business goes bankrupt the owners aren't at risk of losing their life savings. It's not like that's a trivial or useless function.