[free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #62 - 11 msgs

[A.J. Peticolas]

> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent
> > topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in
> > the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech
> > but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial
> > transaction.
I don't think the distinction (ideally) should regard the intent of the
speech (whether it's commercial or not) but should really apply to who
makes it -- an individual (even one doing commercial business) or a
fictitious commercial entity.
     I'm no lawyer or historian but the legal rights of corporations I
believe rest on the legal status of corporations which are legally
"persons" and have all the legal and constitutional rights of persons
including First Amendment rights.  In my mind, corporations are NOT
persons (they cannot think, suffer, or anything else as a person can) but
legally they are.  Certainly they need legal rights such as property and
contract rights but I do not think they need human rights.
     Sometimes I think proposing a constitutional amendment to specify
that "corporations are not persons under this constitution" and trying to
pass it might be a good way to educate the public and focus the issues in
several areas.
				Regards,
				Anne Peticolas
                                Austin, Texas
	                        <petico at io.com>
p.s. I vaguely remember from school that there may have been a Supreme
Court decision establishing that corporations are persons long long ago.
If this is the case and anyone can tell me the case and date, I'd be
grateful.