Fake News for Big Brother

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 07:28  AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit
>>> of the First Amendment.
>>
>> I thought the Constitution applies to personal speech, not to 
>> corporate or
>> government speech...
>>
>> 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 don't believe that corporations do have rights, or at least they 
> certainly
> shouldn't. There is a case before the Supreme Court as we speak about 
> whether
> Nike has a right to freedom of speech. Hopefully they will say no, 
> which would
> end corporate political contributions, the bane of our current 
> political
> situation.
>    However, along with freedom of speech, there is also a First 
> Amendment
> "freedom of the press" as well, so the press, including newspapers, 
> can print
> anything they want unless it's libel.

This debate some of you are having about whether "free speech" applies 
to corporations as well as individuals, or only to individuals, or 
whether it covers "political or financial gain," and so on, is silly.

The First Amendment says nothing about "individuals" or "political or 
financial gain."

In fact, what it says is quite simple, and should be memorized by all 
who wish to discuss it"

--
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.
--

That's what it says. It says "Congress shall make no law..."

It does NOT say "Individuals get to say what they wish, provided it is 
not for financial or political gain, or, like, is a lie and stuff. And 
corporations....fuhgettabout it!"

It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. "No 
law" means no law. And if there is no law, there cannot be a law which 
applies to corporations consisting of one person (they exist) or of 30 
people of 3000 people. Congress cannot make a low abridging Nike's 
freedom of speech.

(Some statists have argued for an "actual malice" exception to the 
First Amendment, e.g., in "N.Y. Times v. Sullivan" and later cases. I 
take the view that the First means precisely what it says it means: "No 
law.")



--Tim May
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a 
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also 
into you." -- Nietzsche