At 05:41 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:42:21AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
I cited the full text of the First. It doesn't talk about who has rights: it says "Congress shall make no law."
Again, the full text. You need to read it, and absorb exactly what it says:
"-- Amendment I
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. --
More practically, the First means Congress shall make no law about speech, period. Or about the other things covered. Notice the word "or." This is important.
The First does not say "Congess shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of individual persons when engaged in press activities or political speech."
It says what it says.
The "rights of corporations," to use your phrasing, thus derive from the specific prohibition placed on Congress (and thus on all states, through their requirement to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of joining the Union...and repeated in the 14 Amendment because some states didn't think the words of the Constitution applied to their fiefdoms).
Funny thing about the 14th, the representatives of the Southern States (who had previously been sworn in and seated for the session) didn't get to vote on it. They were ejected and the doors barred (the Senate even barred a New Jersey rep. who held the deciding vote and was strongly opposed to the measure). They then reported that the majority (of those in the room) approved the measure, which was sent on to the states for ratification. A similar travesty played out in the counting of ratifying states and reporting out the results. When challenged in the Supreme Court the robed ones punted, saying it was a "political matter for Congress to decide". Thus spake Tyranny. Most all current federal authority rests on the 14th and the unwarranted expansion of the Commerce Clause (Wilkert v. Filburn) after FDR and Congress threatened to pack the bench with additional justices in order to pass unconstitutional New Deal legislation. steve