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

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT)

> >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.

For one, you seem to arguing that only "corporations" advertise: many
businesses (like mine) are proud /not/ to be incorporated; we take
full responsibility for the actions of our business, and demand our
full rights as human beings. Even in the case of a corporation, it
can still be held responsible for fraud and slander just as a person
can, and with that responsibility comes rights. The two go together.
Freedom implies responsibility, and vice versa.

The fact that a corporation can weasel out of its responsility by
declaring bankruptcy is no different from the fact that a person can
too. That's a problem, but it's a reason to change bankruptcy law,
not the first admendment.