said by Camelot One:I believe you are arguing over the wrong case. THIS ruling has absolutely nothing to do with free speech issues for Corporations.
Yes you're absolutely correct. Skippy tossed in the issue of corporations having First Amendment rights of speech, so I was just trying to educate him.
SKIPPY: first thanks for the name calling, guess you're getting desperate. Look, dude, I give up. How many times can I say, please educate yourself before going off. You are imagining a legal framework for corporations that you might wish to be, but is nothing like the way it is. I've tried to calmly give you the facts (not opinions). One more time: there is a definition of a "legal person" that includes corporations. This is established law and is fundamental to how corporations are treated in the legal system. Look it up, learn, deal with reality.
Here's a Wikipedia link which comes up first when you do a simple Google search on "corporation legal person". I quote from the linked article:
quote:
The concept of a legal person is now central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system. Corporations are by definition legal persons. (In the United States) because of the First Amendment, Congress can't make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper.
MyDog out.