Re[2]: Free speech vs. big money spin

Guru George (
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:18:44 +0100

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:26:46 -0400
Michael Lorrey <> wrote:

>Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>> Becoming wealthy does not cause one to lose human rights. Advertising
>> is free expression, and always has been, even of the court has only
>> recently started to recognize that plain fact (the Coors case, etc.)
>> It is an insult to the human mind to suggest that it is not capable
>> of judging for itself the value of information it receives, and a
>> exercise of boundless blind faith to suggest that any government is
>> more capable of such judgment than anyone with >80 IQ. I, for one,
>> am capable of judging for myself, and I refuse to concede my right
>> to do so to any government. Caveat Lector.
>Why is it that corporations are given rights that only reside in
>individual citizens? A corporation is not a person, not a citizen, ergo,
>it has no rights. One could say that the individuals who work at or own
>the corporation have rights of free speech, yet those individuals are
>not liable for the corporations actions, so they as individuals cannot
>be sued for libel, slander, and other illegal use of free speech.
Isn't the main reason why corporations are treated as persons in the law
so that they can be held responsible for their actions? i.e. the people
who form the corporation are held collectively responsible for anything
'it' does?

Guru George