undefined | Better HN

0 pointsPyxl1016y ago0 comments

> Corporations do not have inherent rights.

That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that:

"The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'."

(page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf )

If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_...

> In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

0 comments

SamReidHughes6y ago

Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse