Free speech - What entities have it?

[ACPlayer]

Can someone point me to the reference either in the consititution or to the major legal rulings from the SC (or other citation) where some or all -- and specifically free speech -- rights are granted to entities other than humans.

I am wondering why labor unions and corporate entities have a fundamental right to free speech when they are not human but an artificial legal construct.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone point me to the reference either in the consititution or to the major legal rulings from the SC (or other citation) where some or all -- and specifically free speech -- rights are granted to entities other than humans.

I am wondering why labor unions and corporate entities have a fundamental right to free speech when they are not human but an artificial legal construct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither the supreme court nor the US Constitution grants rights.

I wonder, though, how you plan on restricting the "speech" of "labor unions" without restricting the speech of individuals.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]


I wonder, though, how you plan on restricting the "speech" of "labor unions" without restricting the speech of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the SC just ruled that the restriction on the "speech" of labor unions had been illegally restricted by congress and cited First Amendment protections. So clearly it is possible to restrict it in some way.

I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions).

I think it is quite clear when a legal entity (corporate etc) is speaking or when one of the owners, members, employees etc is speaking. At least to me in the common sense definition. Perhaps one of the lawyers or students of the law can point at exactly how the SC interprets the point.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Since only people speak, free speech only applies to people. It does however apply to all people, no matter how narrow their interest. I am also in favour of granting free speech rights to animals or computers that develop sentience.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions).


[/ QUOTE ]
How are unions artificial legal constructs (not saying they're not, just never heard this)?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions).

[/ QUOTE ]

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech for "individuals" or "some people" or anything like that. It's very non-specific.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions).


[/ QUOTE ]
How are unions artificial legal constructs (not saying they're not, just never heard this)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably a union files a paper with the government forming the union into a new entity. THat is what I meant by an artificial legal construct. Definitely a legal construct, artifial in that it does not represent a human.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Since only people speak, free speech only applies to people. It does however apply to all people, no matter how narrow their interest. I am also in favour of granting free speech rights to animals or computers that develop sentience.

[/ QUOTE ]

When General Electric makes an announcement, I dont think of it as a person speaking. I also think of that as being different than a person speaking. Not sure why yet -- still developing the notion.

I too prefer that everyone have free speech.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
When General Electric makes an announcement, I dont think of it as a person speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide an example of an announcement "general electric" made without a person actually being involved?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions).

[/ QUOTE ]

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech for "individuals" or "some people" or anything like that. It's very non-specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the amendment specifically offers freedom of speech to a particular subclass of "artificial legal entities" that is to the Memebers of the Press. Is it logical to conclude that other legal entities can have their speech regulated by the government.

The Bill of Rights specifically and repeatedly refers to the People (I assume that should exclude corporations).

I am still interested in whether this distinction has been tested in court or discussed in the background papers leading to the constitution.

Incidentally, my intention is not to debate whether the government should even exist or be allowed to regulate anything, lets leave that to YAACT (yet another AC thread)