Look, I do not have a scooby if current AI models are conscious and I strongly suspect it’s a meaningless question, but sooner or later we will need to address whether or not a certain thing is or isn’t a person, and we’d better not screw it up as badly as the Founding Fathers.
Citizens United was 100% correct. No, the government should not be able to throw you in prison because you used money to publish a book criticizing the government.
Really, 100% correct? Your premise isn’t wrong, but the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy, in that it completely sidesteps campaign finance limits, which exist for a very good reason.
the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy
How so? If the answer is "Trump" I certainly won't disagree on the catastrophic part, but he didn't get elected because of money; in all three elections his campaign was substantially outspent by his opponents.
The parent agrees with the American Civil Liberties Union: <a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission?document=citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-electio...
That was deliberate, because a corporation makes no spending decisions, ever. All decisions are made by people inside the corporation with the proper responsibility.
That is a major part of the reasoning for the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of corporate political funding.
It is in fact more complicated than most people assume.
The above is true, but also: companies simply are not people, and they should not be supported above the individual, which was the consequences of that decision. Money is not the same as speech. treating it as such creates an aristocracy: something America as a country rebelled against during it's formation.
It's interesting to me that one can look back at the effects that decision has had on the US and say it "was 100% correct."
It's a bit like sitting in the burning ruins of Rome and contemplating that Nero was 100% correct to focus on his music. I mean, I'm glad he got to do what he loves, but maybe 100% is just a tiny bit of an overstatement.
It's more like if the law says the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years, a thief appeals his 20 year sentence, wins, and gets out early. He goes and robs somebody else so you say the court was wrong to let him win.
The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
True, but in this case they made a determination about where the acceptable limits on a constitutional right fall which leaves quite a bit more room to disagree with them. It's not at all clear to me that spending money was intended by the framers to be unconditionally protected by the first amendment. We've even got the interstate commerce clause and IP law codified in the same document so how is that not an obvious inconsistency? IIUC SCOTUS based the distinction on the political nature of the activity but certainly that's not something spelled out in the original document.
I don't like Citizens United either, but you should better inform yourself about the decision.
1. The idea of corporate personhood predates CU by over a century and the Supreme Court had already asserted that corporations enjoyed certain constitutional protections in previous decisions.
2. Far from inventing the idea, the CU decision didn't even rest on corporate personhood, but on the idea of the freedom of speech generally. The logic of the majority was that speech itself is protected, irrespective to whether the speaker is a person or an organization. The First Amendment covers individuals, but also newspapers, book publishers, radio stations, and so on, and that should extend (they said) to non-media corporations. No assertion of personhood necessary.
The problem, in my opinion, is that that conclusion combined with previous decisions that treated limits on spending as limits on speech, allowed for unlimited spending. The majority also naively asserted that independent spending posed no risk of corruption, which I think is laughable.
moomin · · focus · HN ↗
OedipusRex · · focus · HN ↗
orangecat · · focus · HN ↗
appplication · · focus · HN ↗
orangecat · · focus · HN ↗
How so? If the answer is "Trump" I certainly won't disagree on the catastrophic part, but he didn't get elected because of money; in all three elections his campaign was substantially outspent by his opponents.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
fl4regun · · focus · HN ↗
outside1234 · · focus · HN ↗
orangecat · · focus · HN ↗
kbelder · · focus · HN ↗
fl4regun · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
kbelder · · focus · HN ↗
That is a major part of the reasoning for the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of corporate political funding.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
altruios · · focus · HN ↗
The above is true, but also: companies simply are not people, and they should not be supported above the individual, which was the consequences of that decision. Money is not the same as speech. treating it as such creates an aristocracy: something America as a country rebelled against during it's formation.
InsideOutSanta · · focus · HN ↗
It's interesting to me that one can look back at the effects that decision has had on the US and say it "was 100% correct."
It's a bit like sitting in the burning ruins of Rome and contemplating that Nero was 100% correct to focus on his music. I mean, I'm glad he got to do what he loves, but maybe 100% is just a tiny bit of an overstatement.
ToValueFunfetti · · focus · HN ↗
The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
InsideOutSanta · · focus · HN ↗
fc417fc802 · · focus · HN ↗
dam_jackalopes · · focus · HN ↗
jetrink · · focus · HN ↗
1. The idea of corporate personhood predates CU by over a century and the Supreme Court had already asserted that corporations enjoyed certain constitutional protections in previous decisions.
2. Far from inventing the idea, the CU decision didn't even rest on corporate personhood, but on the idea of the freedom of speech generally. The logic of the majority was that speech itself is protected, irrespective to whether the speaker is a person or an organization. The First Amendment covers individuals, but also newspapers, book publishers, radio stations, and so on, and that should extend (they said) to non-media corporations. No assertion of personhood necessary.
The problem, in my opinion, is that that conclusion combined with previous decisions that treated limits on spending as limits on speech, allowed for unlimited spending. The majority also naively asserted that independent spending posed no risk of corruption, which I think is laughable.