On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist.
He was fired for saying things, not doing things, fired for speaking out against affirmative action. In other words, you do not want freedom of speech for corporations, because that is a way of ensuring that individual humans employed by corporations do not have freedom of speech
Assuming all of your arguments to be correct (which I don't), I would want to remove "freedom of speech" for corporations because it artificially amplifies the voice of the corporate entity: the individuals who own the issued shares of the corporation already have these freedoms - by allowing the corporation "to speak", these "people" (both natural and atificial) are given more than their one individual opinions, (b) the corporation can be used to nullify the voices of the [natural] People comprising the corporation, and (c) the corporation has a narrow interest - making more money - which is often (if not always) at odds with those of the natural people who comprise the corporation. Corporations don't need food to eat, water to drink, and shelter to live: the People for which the Country acts as a home have interests that are at odds with the corporate focus on cash. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.