This discusses the free speech rights of corporations but does not discuss the separate topic of civil liability. Some corporations are shielded from civil liability by claiming to be neutral platforms. But if they chose to exercise editorial control over the material on their sites, then are they neutral platforms? This has not yet been resolved in court, but if they lose that status, then they could become liable for what's posted on their site.
Few think removing a comment/posting is exercising editorial control, at least not yet. That is, they didn't ask for the material to be written, they had no control over it being written, so all they can do is say "you can't say that using my business," and that must protected free speech. With advertising, it does get a bit more complicated because they do seem to be paying for content that they then publish, so changing course would seem to make them liable.
@Justin Dean I agree with you that Facebook can ban your account for whatever reason they want, but i think corporations should not be allowed to lie about their opinions. For example, TH-cam restricting PragerU videos is ok, but they shouldn't lie about the reason for it (wich is obviously their bias), they have to admit their bias, so people can decide if they want to use TH-cam or not, taking in consideration everything about them. I think the point is clarity.
@Justin Dean In my country, Brazil, there is a new law that is still to be voted, that punishes corporations who spread fake news, It doesn't affect their right to say their opinions, they just won't be allowed to create "Alternative facts" to convince people.
Unions do have the right to tell their members who to vote for as long as their is no coercion. But the members also have the right to vote for whoever they want to without fear of retaliation.
What recourse (under the law) does ReasonTV have if Google decided to ban their channel for no other reason than it disagrees the corporate managers political opinions?
No person or corporation has the right to use any non-government service. Oh sure we can argue about whether its a race, color, creed, mental illness thing but speech is not a human being. It's Googles data. They can filter it however they choose. If the filters get too strict, other search engines will become more popular. For obvious reasons, I never use Google. I use Bing. I never tell anyone to "Google it". I always say "Search for it".
Neither has actually occurred until the person you helped elect takes the money (but has already ran and won). (Will they run again and do things for you some more? Ask an honest question of your representative not youtubers!) If you owned a business would you hire known liars? Do you vote? If the business were car sales then what is your answer? Does holding up your right hand force the truth out of you? Tell the truth...
Campaign contributions is not individual income. Lobbying is also a separate activity than donating to a campaign. A lobbyist might use their position as a campaign donor to get legislation passed, but none of it goes directly into the pocket of the politician. Lobbying is simply pushing an elected official to do what you want. For instance if you email your senators office to vote yes on a legislation, then that's lobbying.
TH-cam exemptions to the constitution were based on the stipulation that they remain a neutral service provider, not a publisher, and is the primary reason Facebook TH-cam google and Twitter all avoid numerous lawsuits, and thus are classified as some type of public commons, rather than as a publisher liable to any part of the public at large for any damages such businesses knowledgeably permitted to be printed. Should they continue to violate The primordial basis of their immunity, implicitly or explicitly, they will have to be stripped of said privileges, which to begin with - The necessitation of their granting immunity to what counts as constitutional legislation, implies severe ineptitudes, and inherent conflicts to a business’ progress, not of the original founding document which sets legal precedent for legality and tolerance of any and all subsequent laws, as much as subsequent countless pieces of legislation accrued for over 200 years of history, made in response, and without respect to other pieces of legislation, or reform thereof, leading to numerous complications as a result of innumerable explicit legal precedents set by each piece of legislation, any number of which can be invoked in any number of situations, even situations not specifically envisioned.
Yes and no, all speech needs the up most protection, otherwise even if you say something bad about government, while they can't arrest you on the grounds of political speech, they can arrest you on the grounds of some other speech, it's essentially authoritarianism via proxy
First, is this equally true of privately owned business, and second, how does title VI sections 601-603 of the civil rights act impact both in view of the protections of their first amendment rights?
Great explanation over the 2010 decision that always troubled me. My stance may be simply reactionary that while corporations have First Amendment rights they aren't burdened by jail time should they break the law. P.G.&E. was found guilty of murdering 70 in the Paradise fire but no one went to jail.
I don't have a problem with a corporation saying that they support this or that candidate or proposed law. My problem is that they are allowed to buy politicians with money. If say, GM wants to support Bernie, they can buy commercials that say; "GM supports Bernie", the money should not go to Bernie's campaign. This would make it clearer to the public who to support or not support by their purchases, Also, investors would have more say in what the company is doing, since it would be more open. Individuals on the other hand should be able to waste their own money any way they want as long as there is no expectation of performance.
The video glosses over this a bit, but at 3:14 "dissenting shareholders can't stop that *any more than* they can stop any of the corporation's other action". So the limits of individual shareholders isn't specific to speech, but is like any other corporate action: individual shareholders vote for a board of directors to make decisions on their behalf. Activist shareholders will buy up some portion of the stock (doesn't have to be a majority) to force a change. All this depends on the bylaws of the company and of the laws in the state in which the company is incorporated.
the problem is corporations have more power than individuals because they have the money backing them and they have the ability to use their workforce as ransome so they get what they want so it's an unequal playing field from the off. take for example when a mining tax was going to be introduced in australia because we were having a resources boom and barely any corporations were paying tax and what they were paying was tiny compared to what they were making. The government announced it was going to up the tax and the companies funded an ad campaign like the rest of us can't basically saying if you cut our profit margins we are going to let people go. not because they had to but they would not accept smaller margins so the government had to choose between calling their bluff , having less revenue to fund the nation or having unemployed people on their hands. that's an abuse of such freedoms and everyone knows it. a corporation is not more important than the individual. it may lobby for it's say but granting it the same rights as an individual is ultimately tyrannical because their is a complete power difference
Great. So we now know that corporations have speech rights. Now, what about corporations that attempt to limit the speech of thier employees based on the politics of the corporation or its board. EG: Corporation finds out that employee X has been supporting Candidate Y on thier own time and NOT as a corporate representative. Corporation supports Candidate Z. Corporation fires Employee X based on some nebulous violation of corporate policy regarding being involved in politics. and/or "creating a negative workplace atmosphere" based on their personal politics, irrespective of whether they ever even brought politics up in the workplace. Is this legal or illegal and why? (My personal take for full disclosure is that this should not be legal as a corporation has no right to demand that their employees live or believe in any specific way, and demanding that they do is a violation of the employee's civil rights.)
I beleive it is legal as long their contract doesn't prohibit it.. which... we all have mixed feelings about but it makes sense from a legal perspective.
@@naarcissus However, if a corporate shareholder cannot force a corporation to speak in a certain way, why should a corporation be allowed to force it's employees to speak in a certain way? In both cases, is it not a violation of the free speech rights of the one being demanded to speak? There is already case law that you cannot contract away your rights. If you could, then people could enter voluntary slavery, which we know you cannot. Therefore we cannot use the "employment contract" argument, since it is illegal for a contract to remove rights from people. I just don't see any situation where this could be legal.
A corporation can't stop you from saying what you want to say, but they don't have to employ you either. Don't conflate organizations' rights to endorse or not endorse opinions with violation of the rights of individuals they employ. This is an increasingly liberal world. Generally, large corporations don't care what you have to say unless it makes them look bad. Further, you have a right to SEEK employment with willing employers just as employers have a right to SEEK willing employees. You don't have a right to employment. Your employer is not obligated to employ you beyond the obligations outlined in whatever contract was drafted when you were hired. The same rules apply to non-employment transactions. For example, people like Alex Jones got cut off by all major social media sites b/c he was very likely committing libel along with generally pissing off the public for being outrageous in a really messed up way. That is a debatable point, but that doesnt matter. People have the right to choose who they pay for services or who they allow to use their property. Does Alex Jones' right to use a someone else's private property take precedence over that property owner's right to make their property exclusive? If Jones was a TH-cam or FB employee the same rules apply b/c it all comes down to property rights. I suspect your fear of letting corporations discriminate in this way stems from the belief that corporations will behave like the government does when it discriminates: without impunity. The problem with this is corporations are not all powerful; they generally can't act with impunity specifically b/c being evil isn't profitable when they don't have the government to protect them from competitors who would otherwise capitalize on their mistakes.
So the next question is, can communications-based corporations change the quality of or completely deny their communications services unequally for those who use said services, based on the differences between the political views of the corporation versus the individual users' political views, or do they have a legal responsibility to treat all the political views of the users of their communications services equally?
No, they can choose what they want or don't want on their platform (private property). Take this as an example, I invite you around to my house for dinner but then mid way through the evening you start insulting my wife, I have every right to ask you to leave and kick you out if need be. That is not censorship, I am perfectly within to moderate speech on my property.
@@andrewharris79 suppose you're the only telephone company in town. Do you have the right to deny service to people for disagreeing with you politically? Personally, I think one of the roles of government is to prevent other organizations from getting powerful enough to effectively infringe upon free speech by making the speech they prefer so much more accessible and audible than that which they don't, through monopolistic control over communication lines. Zuckerberg himself has described Facebook as the new town square. When a corporation owns the town square, do they still have the right to reserve it for people who agree with them politically? My opinion: when a right becomes an authority, (the ability to infringe upon the rights of others), it's no longer a right. The trouble with the bill of rights is that it protects individual rights from the government only. It ought to protect our rights from eachother.
@@frederickbarbarossa7961 I say that liberty depends upon the decentralization of political power. That's what the constitution does to government. A national social network monopoly is also a political power, and it either needs to be broken up or forced to treat members of the public as equally as it would if it were a constitutionally-bound government agency.
@@HankMeyer Yes, I could deny service for any reason. Let's say I'm the only baker in town and a gay couple comes and asks me to bake a cake for their wedding; can i deny them my services?
Ok so if speech of businesses is protected then why can they sued for things like advertisement which punishes their free speech. Businesses have free speech and individuals have free speech... Yet businesses can limit the speech of the individuals working for them or individuals on their property or using their services. These "inalienable" rights are not protected in any way. This country is a sham, always has been
No it's your huge misunderstanding, private companies are PRIVATE, they can do anything they like, the First Amendment only applies to the government, not PRIVATE companies, companies can restrict their employees' free speech because it's their EMPLOYEES, meaning your employer has control over you. You just don't get it
Huh, as an employee of an Investor owned company it sure feels like they run the show. They are the most important entity in decision making, with employees and customers being the last consideration.
@Joe Enright likewise, no one need work for a union shop, but to hear the junior corporatist explain right to work in mind-numbing detail, hypocrisy is good when it favors business.
It's their free speech to limit yours. You remember that little thing called internet freedom act??? Well you didn't want the government to control any part of it... corporations aren't the government...they're worse, you're welcome.
Kinda seems like you didn't watch the video, because they address your clever quip when they say that the Supreme Court is unanimous in its opinion that corporations have First Amendment rights and that such has been the case since the late 19th Century.
Aren't corporations people? A group of people gathered together in support of some action, usually making money. If you are limiting the corporate speech then wouldn't you be, in reality, limiting the speech of the citizens that are the corporation? Any other groups you'd like silenced?
@@naarcissus they aren't representing me or you, they represent their megashareholders, you should know that. Corps aren't polling workers what what to support.
@@dosmastrify How do you know they aren't representing me? Been looking through my stock portfolio have you? /sarc Megashareholders are (often) citizens too and have the same rights as you (depending on your U.S. citizenship status) or I.
You have the exact same rights of free speech as any corporation. People aren't obligated to listen to you, just as they aren't obligated to listen to any corporation. How do they have more rights?
A corporation is a collective holding for property; thus, property rights apply. No one is saying you can't say whatever you want. What you're doing is conflating the right to free speech with the right to impose your will on others who don't like what you're saying, by forcing them to employ you. Why do you have a right to be employed against the wishes of your boss more than your boss has the right to stop employing you against your wishes? Free speech is not under attack. For all the drama social media censorship has caused it's surprising just how much we talk about it on social media platforms owned by those censors. This is a problem supported by many tokens examples, but disproven by many more. Facebook is driven by profits more than anything else. Censorship is really only in the self interest of those who are clinging to monopolistic political power. Lack of censorship is in the interest of those who make money off people running their mouths on public platforms (e.g. Facebook). A corporation (or any form of business organization) discriminting on the basis of "we don't like what you say" is like you telling black people they can't come into your house b/c you dont like blacks. Your reasoning may not be valid, but no one is going to question your rights just b/c your reasons for exercising them are bad. What's actually going to happen is people are going to decide by and large that they dont like what you stand for and be friends with someone else, just like customers, investors, and creditors do when businesses dive deep into toxic controversy. Businesses who don't care about making money cease to exist in the long term. Businesses who think they can make money by making enemies are either stupid or have regulators in their back pocket.
As far as an original constructionist view to rights, where in the constitution is a corporation afforded the same rights as a human being? Are corporations endowed by GOD the same inalienable rights as a human being if their sole purpose is greed?
Murdock doesn't run the political side, he only runs (now: ran) the business side...and the goal was to make a news-station that catered to conservatives, as they saw a potential for huge profits. Don't mix his love of money with holding any political beliefs. He doesn't care, as you can see from many of his past ownership's in EU too.
This discusses the free speech rights of corporations but does not discuss the separate topic of civil liability. Some corporations are shielded from civil liability by claiming to be neutral platforms. But if they chose to exercise editorial control over the material on their sites, then are they neutral platforms? This has not yet been resolved in court, but if they lose that status, then they could become liable for what's posted on their site.
Few think removing a comment/posting is exercising editorial control, at least not yet. That is, they didn't ask for the material to be written, they had no control over it being written, so all they can do is say "you can't say that using my business," and that must protected free speech. With advertising, it does get a bit more complicated because they do seem to be paying for content that they then publish, so changing course would seem to make them liable.
That is an interesting topic. I would be very interested in a video discussing this.
@Justin Dean I agree with you that Facebook can ban your account for whatever reason they want, but i think corporations should not be allowed to lie about their opinions. For example, TH-cam restricting PragerU videos is ok, but they shouldn't lie about the reason for it (wich is obviously their bias), they have to admit their bias, so people can decide if they want to use TH-cam or not, taking in consideration everything about them. I think the point is clarity.
@Justin Dean In my country, Brazil, there is a new law that is still to be voted, that punishes corporations who spread fake news, It doesn't affect their right to say their opinions, they just won't be allowed to create "Alternative facts" to convince people.
@@frederickbarbarossa7961 If you know their bias, why do they have to admit it?
Brilliant, and yet, obvious.
Not a word about wikileaks?
it's covered under corp or organization
Yes, it's also outrageous how unions think they have a right to tell it's members who they should vote for.
Unions do have the right to tell their members who to vote for as long as their is no coercion. But the members also have the right to vote for whoever they want to without fear of retaliation.
What recourse (under the law) does ReasonTV have if Google decided to ban their channel for no other reason than it disagrees the corporate managers political opinions?
Prager U is suing youtube, so maybe that's available
Should there be any?
constitutionally they could try to get listed under another search engine or create their own search engine
No person or corporation has the right to use any non-government service. Oh sure we can argue about whether its a race, color, creed, mental illness thing but speech is not a human being. It's Googles data. They can filter it however they choose. If the filters get too strict, other search engines will become more popular. For obvious reasons, I never use Google. I use Bing. I never tell anyone to "Google it". I always say "Search for it".
Here's an honest question. How is lobbying any different than indirect bribery?
Somebody lobbying pretends to be helping others while the briber doesn't care? LOL
As long as you want the government to do shit, I want to lobby.
Neither has actually occurred until the person you helped elect takes the money (but has already ran and won). (Will they run again and do things for you some more? Ask an honest question of your representative not youtubers!)
If you owned a business would you hire known liars? Do you vote? If the business were car sales then what is your answer? Does holding up your right hand force the truth out of you? Tell the truth...
Lobbying doesn't need to have bribery. If you knock on 10 senators' doors and ask for them to pass a bill it is lobbying and not a penny was spent.
Campaign contributions is not individual income. Lobbying is also a separate activity than donating to a campaign. A lobbyist might use their position as a campaign donor to get legislation passed, but none of it goes directly into the pocket of the politician. Lobbying is simply pushing an elected official to do what you want. For instance if you email your senators office to vote yes on a legislation, then that's lobbying.
TH-cam exemptions to the constitution were based on the stipulation that they remain a neutral service provider, not a publisher, and is the primary reason Facebook TH-cam google and Twitter all avoid numerous lawsuits, and thus are classified as some type of public commons, rather than as a publisher liable to any part of the public at large for any damages such businesses knowledgeably permitted to be printed. Should they continue to violate The primordial basis of their immunity, implicitly or explicitly, they will have to be stripped of said privileges, which to begin with - The necessitation of their granting immunity to what counts as constitutional legislation, implies severe ineptitudes, and inherent conflicts to a business’ progress, not of the original founding document which sets legal precedent for legality and tolerance of any and all subsequent laws, as much as subsequent countless pieces of legislation accrued for over 200 years of history, made in response, and without respect to other pieces of legislation, or reform thereof, leading to numerous complications as a result of innumerable explicit legal precedents set by each piece of legislation, any number of which can be invoked in any number of situations, even situations not specifically envisioned.
Isn't political speech the speech that needs the most protection?
Yes and no, all speech needs the up most protection, otherwise even if you say something bad about government, while they can't arrest you on the grounds of political speech, they can arrest you on the grounds of some other speech, it's essentially authoritarianism via proxy
TBH Hate speech is the speech in need of the most protection.
@@rufrox9404 """hate speech"""
First, is this equally true of privately owned business, and second, how does title VI sections 601-603 of the civil rights act impact both in view of the protections of their first amendment rights?
Sending rays of support from russian libertarians.
Wow Russian Libertarians that would be a huge and increadible change for Russia.
@@andrewharris79 It would indeed
Fuck the Putin administration.
How do you get around the weaponizing the moldable idea of HATE SPEECH??
I know this is late but what does weaponizing mean?
Nathan Halicki Here you go this sums up why the idea of hate speech is complete bullshit
th-cam.com/video/8xGekzN6EuM/w-d-xo.html
This series is excellent.
Great explanation over the 2010 decision that always troubled me. My stance may be simply reactionary that while corporations have First Amendment rights they aren't burdened by jail time should they break the law. P.G.&E. was found guilty of murdering 70 in the Paradise fire but no one went to jail.
I don't have a problem with a corporation saying that they support this or that candidate or proposed law. My problem is that they are allowed to buy politicians with money. If say, GM wants to support Bernie, they can buy commercials that say; "GM supports Bernie", the money should not go to Bernie's campaign. This would make it clearer to the public who to support or not support by their purchases, Also, investors would have more say in what the company is doing, since it would be more open.
Individuals on the other hand should be able to waste their own money any way they want as long as there is no expectation of performance.
If a corporation was an animal in Orwell's "Animal Farm," would it be a pig?
if you have enough shares then an individual could change its views of a corporation or influence it?
Yes
But be forewarned that buying a controlling amount of stock is not easily done.
Because you kinda own it now...
The video glosses over this a bit, but at 3:14 "dissenting shareholders can't stop that *any more than* they can stop any of the corporation's other action".
So the limits of individual shareholders isn't specific to speech, but is like any other corporate action: individual shareholders vote for a board of directors to make decisions on their behalf. Activist shareholders will buy up some portion of the stock (doesn't have to be a majority) to force a change. All this depends on the bylaws of the company and of the laws in the state in which the company is incorporated.
the problem is corporations have more power than individuals because they have the money backing them and they have the ability to use their workforce as ransome so they get what they want so it's an unequal playing field from the off. take for example when a mining tax was going to be introduced in australia because we were having a resources boom and barely any corporations were paying tax and what they were paying was tiny compared to what they were making. The government announced it was going to up the tax and the companies funded an ad campaign like the rest of us can't basically saying if you cut our profit margins we are going to let people go. not because they had to but they would not accept smaller margins so the government had to choose between calling their bluff , having less revenue to fund the nation or having unemployed people on their hands. that's an abuse of such freedoms and everyone knows it. a corporation is not more important than the individual. it may lobby for it's say but granting it the same rights as an individual is ultimately tyrannical because their is a complete power difference
This isn't on the playlist for some reason.
So we can't tax rights? Looking at you NFA 1934
Very interesting video. Thank you! I look forward to more :)
What is the name of the music playing on the video?
Great. So we now know that corporations have speech rights. Now, what about corporations that attempt to limit the speech of thier employees based on the politics of the corporation or its board. EG: Corporation finds out that employee X has been supporting Candidate Y on thier own time and NOT as a corporate representative. Corporation supports Candidate Z. Corporation fires Employee X based on some nebulous violation of corporate policy regarding being involved in politics. and/or "creating a negative workplace atmosphere" based on their personal politics, irrespective of whether they ever even brought politics up in the workplace.
Is this legal or illegal and why?
(My personal take for full disclosure is that this should not be legal as a corporation has no right to demand that their employees live or believe in any specific way, and demanding that they do is a violation of the employee's civil rights.)
I beleive it is legal as long their contract doesn't prohibit it.. which... we all have mixed feelings about but it makes sense from a legal perspective.
To my knowledge, the first amendment protects against government censorship only.
@@naarcissus However, if a corporate shareholder cannot force a corporation to speak in a certain way, why should a corporation be allowed to force it's employees to speak in a certain way? In both cases, is it not a violation of the free speech rights of the one being demanded to speak?
There is already case law that you cannot contract away your rights. If you could, then people could enter voluntary slavery, which we know you cannot. Therefore we cannot use the "employment contract" argument, since it is illegal for a contract to remove rights from people.
I just don't see any situation where this could be legal.
@@naarcissus I thought the discirmation act also applied to political aligence; and the expression of such.
A corporation can't stop you from saying what you want to say, but they don't have to employ you either.
Don't conflate organizations' rights to endorse or not endorse opinions with violation of the rights of individuals they employ. This is an increasingly liberal world. Generally, large corporations don't care what you have to say unless it makes them look bad. Further, you have a right to SEEK employment with willing employers just as employers have a right to SEEK willing employees. You don't have a right to employment. Your employer is not obligated to employ you beyond the obligations outlined in whatever contract was drafted when you were hired. The same rules apply to non-employment transactions.
For example, people like Alex Jones got cut off by all major social media sites b/c he was very likely committing libel along with generally pissing off the public for being outrageous in a really messed up way. That is a debatable point, but that doesnt matter. People have the right to choose who they pay for services or who they allow to use their property. Does Alex Jones' right to use a someone else's private property take precedence over that property owner's right to make their property exclusive? If Jones was a TH-cam or FB employee the same rules apply b/c it all comes down to property rights.
I suspect your fear of letting corporations discriminate in this way stems from the belief that corporations will behave like the government does when it discriminates: without impunity. The problem with this is corporations are not all powerful; they generally can't act with impunity specifically b/c being evil isn't profitable when they don't have the government to protect them from competitors who would otherwise capitalize on their mistakes.
So the next question is, can communications-based corporations change the quality of or completely deny their communications services unequally for those who use said services, based on the differences between the political views of the corporation versus the individual users' political views, or do they have a legal responsibility to treat all the political views of the users of their communications services equally?
No, they can choose what they want or don't want on their platform (private property). Take this as an example, I invite you around to my house for dinner but then mid way through the evening you start insulting my wife, I have every right to ask you to leave and kick you out if need be. That is not censorship, I am perfectly within to moderate speech on my property.
I say you can serve whoever you want, no matter the reason.
@@andrewharris79 suppose you're the only telephone company in town. Do you have the right to deny service to people for disagreeing with you politically? Personally, I think one of the roles of government is to prevent other organizations from getting powerful enough to effectively infringe upon free speech by making the speech they prefer so much more accessible and audible than that which they don't, through monopolistic control over communication lines. Zuckerberg himself has described Facebook as the new town square. When a corporation owns the town square, do they still have the right to reserve it for people who agree with them politically?
My opinion: when a right becomes an authority, (the ability to infringe upon the rights of others), it's no longer a right. The trouble with the bill of rights is that it protects individual rights from the government only. It ought to protect our rights from eachother.
@@frederickbarbarossa7961 I say that liberty depends upon the decentralization of political power. That's what the constitution does to government. A national social network monopoly is also a political power, and it either needs to be broken up or forced to treat members of the public as equally as it would if it were a constitutionally-bound government agency.
@@HankMeyer Yes, I could deny service for any reason.
Let's say I'm the only baker in town and a gay couple comes and asks me to bake a cake for their wedding; can i deny them my services?
Ok so if speech of businesses is protected then why can they sued for things like advertisement which punishes their free speech. Businesses have free speech and individuals have free speech... Yet businesses can limit the speech of the individuals working for them or individuals on their property or using their services. These "inalienable" rights are not protected in any way. This country is a sham, always has been
No it's your huge misunderstanding, private companies are PRIVATE, they can do anything they like, the First Amendment only applies to the government, not PRIVATE companies, companies can restrict their employees' free speech because it's their EMPLOYEES, meaning your employer has control over you. You just don't get it
Huh, as an employee of an Investor owned company it sure feels like they run the show. They are the most important entity in decision making, with employees and customers being the last consideration.
Claim the company is a union and have the libertarians fall over themselves about how you are being forced to support speech you don't agree with.
@Joe Enright
likewise, no one need work for a union shop, but to hear the junior corporatist explain right to work in mind-numbing detail, hypocrisy is good when it favors business.
@@quintessenceSL Right to work can be abolished after the NLRA and mandatory bargaining.
Will America ever again value the things money can't buy?
But I am more curious about corporations limiting free speech of others????
It's their free speech to limit yours. You remember that little thing called internet freedom act??? Well you didn't want the government to control any part of it... corporations aren't the government...they're worse, you're welcome.
Your free speech rights are ONLY between you and your government. There is no free speech right granted by any person or corporation to a person.
they have the right to limit your speech on their platform
MiloTheSwift corporations have so much monopolization and control BECAUSE of the government. So the government is the problem.
I do believe AT &T gained their monopoly all by themselves
cool
One would think this is common sense, but alas, sense of any kind is lacking at this moment in history.
Aren't corporations persons now?
Wasn't that something we did?
Kinda seems like you didn't watch the video, because they address your clever quip when they say that the Supreme Court is unanimous in its opinion that corporations have First Amendment rights and that such has been the case since the late 19th Century.
Yeah, it's like. Magic, only needed to grind the intentions of the founders into a powder and sprinkle it
Aren't corporations people? A group of people gathered together in support of some action, usually making money. If you are limiting the corporate speech then wouldn't you be, in reality, limiting the speech of the citizens that are the corporation? Any other groups you'd like silenced?
@@naarcissus they aren't representing me or you, they represent their megashareholders, you should know that.
Corps aren't polling workers what what to support.
@@dosmastrify How do you know they aren't representing me? Been looking through my stock portfolio have you? /sarc
Megashareholders are (often) citizens too and have the same rights as you (depending on your U.S. citizenship status) or I.
So share holders have more free speech rights than a non share holders. Sounds kinda perverse.
Pardon but how does a share holder have more speech?
You have the exact same rights of free speech as any corporation. People aren't obligated to listen to you, just as they aren't obligated to listen to any corporation. How do they have more rights?
A corporation is a collective holding for property; thus, property rights apply.
No one is saying you can't say whatever you want. What you're doing is conflating the right to free speech with the right to impose your will on others who don't like what you're saying, by forcing them to employ you. Why do you have a right to be employed against the wishes of your boss more than your boss has the right to stop employing you against your wishes?
Free speech is not under attack. For all the drama social media censorship has caused it's surprising just how much we talk about it on social media platforms owned by those censors. This is a problem supported by many tokens examples, but disproven by many more. Facebook is driven by profits more than anything else. Censorship is really only in the self interest of those who are clinging to monopolistic political power. Lack of censorship is in the interest of those who make money off people running their mouths on public platforms (e.g. Facebook). A corporation (or any form of business organization) discriminting on the basis of "we don't like what you say" is like you telling black people they can't come into your house b/c you dont like blacks. Your reasoning may not be valid, but no one is going to question your rights just b/c your reasons for exercising them are bad. What's actually going to happen is people are going to decide by and large that they dont like what you stand for and be friends with someone else, just like customers, investors, and creditors do when businesses dive deep into toxic controversy.
Businesses who don't care about making money cease to exist in the long term. Businesses who think they can make money by making enemies are either stupid or have regulators in their back pocket.
As far as an original constructionist view to rights, where in the constitution is a corporation afforded the same rights as a human being? Are corporations endowed by GOD the same inalienable rights as a human being if their sole purpose is greed?
Hard to focus on the voice with that background music.
why are you telling me this
So basically, FOX News has never been influenced by Ruppert Murdoch? #sarcasm :D
You Forgot #micDrop
%shutthefuckup@@!!stupidsymbols
@@MilwaukeeF40C #ANGRYMAN
Murdock doesn't run the political side, he only runs (now: ran) the business side...and the goal was to make a news-station that catered to conservatives, as they saw a potential for huge profits. Don't mix his love of money with holding any political beliefs. He doesn't care, as you can see from many of his past ownership's in EU too.
Just wish they would penalize the ones who consistently lie.
So a corp cant block a TH-camr for free speech
Yes they can. You are using their product, they have the right too manage it the way they see fit.
Yeah no, money shouldn't equal speech when it comes to corps.