...and the Constitution
...and Capitalism
...and well you get the idea.
EE-Aw!
"It gets even stranger. Snowe and Rockefeller are particularly upset that ExxonMobil has funded groups that publish views about climate science on "non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station." Snowe and Rockefeller have also published viewpoints on climate change on their own websites. Are their websites "peer reviewed"?
U.S. citizens have a right to discuss global warming and climate policy even if they are not scientists. Snowe and Rockefeller imply that speech about global warming and climate policy is illegitimate unless conducted within the pages of scientific journals such as Science or Nature, or unless it uncritically parrots the editorial policies of such journals.
This kind of elitism—the notion that the lay public should just defer to its betters and never question the pronouncements of scientific experts—may have its aficionados in the Royal Society, but it has no place except parody in American politics."
mo'
23 comments:
Are you kidding? Exxon has a right to free speech and to fund whoever it wants, and Senators Snowe and Rockefeller have a right to criticize them.
Actually, strictly speaking Exxon has no rights as it is not a person, but the Corporate Executives have rights.
Exxon has no rights? None?
Hmm. Interesting. Extremely ignorant, but interesting none the less as it once again demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on the subject matter being discussed as well as revealing your true socialist leanings.
Say hello to Hugo.
Hey, moron--the people who own Exxon have the rights. Exxon is a Corporation, not a person. The Bill of Rights applies to people. Note I said "strictly speaking."
Maybe you should get to googling before I have to bitch slap you again.
Once again you bring a plastic spork to a knife fight.
I am aware that the law is complex on the subject of corporations as "persons".
But not to get sidetracked, my main point is that the Senators, by criticizing Exxon are merely exercising their free speech rights, not attacking America or the Constitution.
Well you are certainly aware now. Youre welcome.
Understand that our mission at The Aurora is to educate more so than debate so if you learned something today I am proud of you.
It was you that tried to sidetrack the issue with erroneous statements, you were proven wrong on your first comments and you are wrong now.
Exxon has the right to pay whoever they want to study whatver they want and to say whatever they want and for two US Senators to try and stiffle that voice because they disagree is intrinsically un-American.
The Senators are criticizing Exxon not attempting to pass a law to stop Exxon from financing whoever it wants to. If Exxon has a right to free speech, then certainly US Senators do as well.
Donkeyhue you misconstrued what he said by having rights, I dont think he's saying they dont have the inherent right to do business- he is saying that where the law is concerned (and this has been tested, even to the point of ridiculous legislation) "people" have rights just as my house does not have rights as a property owner. I have the rights.
The employees, participants, shareholders- whoever- has the "right. Collectively or as individuals.
Just saying, Donkey, because as you know at TBR there was a whole thread about whether or not a corporation is a human. And worse, the debate actually got into if we should expect a non entity to have remorse or shame or guilt.
People have rights. Inanimate objects do not.
I think thats all he meant. You are over reacting, emotiontard.
Exactly. This is a complicated area of law and not my field, but corporations are "fictitious persons" not "natural persons."
It's like asking does Spiderman have rights? If the good people at Marvell comics want to have Spiderman come out in favor of impeaching Bush, then they have every right to do so. But "Spiderman" has no rights because he is not a real person.
Eb you are wrong.
I didnt miscontrue anything. Unlike how you liberals like to interpret "maaning", I took his comment at face value.
I believe his exact words were...
Exxon has no rights as it is not a person"
Which without even getting into the argument about corporate personhood is just flat out wrong. Whether or not they are the same as individuals is irrelevant to this discussion.
Just as you and Gary have the right to have your heads up your ass.
...and just as it is wrong for two American Senators to attempt to censor and stiffle dissenting opinions.
Class dismissed!
Please tell me you didnt just compare Exxon to Spiderman. Sorry Gary but Im going to have to have to flunk you and hold you back a year, maybe two.
Youve said a lot of stupid things but that by far takes the cake.
Do you deliberately miss the point or are you just an idiot? My point was that it is the people in Exxon who have the rights. Exxon is not a person anymore than Spiderman is.
And again, the Senators are not censoring Exxon they are criticizing Exxon. Exxon can give its money to the KKK if it wants to but it will and should be criticized.
Is it possible that you do not understand these points?
You are aware that Spiderman is a fictitious character right?
Whether or not Exxon is a person is a irrelevant. They are free to give money to whoever they want to, in fact it is their RIGHT to do so.
Sens Snowe and Rockefeller are asking; strike that, DEMANDING that they give up that right.
This from Snowes own website in big bold letters.
ROCKEFELLER AND SNOWE DEMAND THAT EXXON MOBIL END FUNDING OF CAMPAIGN THAT DENIES GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Senators Demand that the World’s Largest Oil Maker Make Public Its History of Funding Climate Change “Skeptics”
It is obvious that you agree with them and that is why you are trying to make this discussion; as always, something that it is not.
We can discuss corporate law another day as it is my field and I can point out just exactly how you are wrong and why, but once again for this discussion it is irrelevant.
...and eb maybe your should go back and read your comment. You refute yourself within one paragraph (new record for you I think).
Ill explain if you need me to.
This whole thread is idiotic.
Fact: these two senators are would like to shut up dissenting opinions. They haven't proposed any laws to do so...... Oh wait a minute, are they involved in the "fairness doctrine"? If so, then they HAVE proposed a law to shut up dissenting opinions.
If the Senators attempt to pass a law against Exxon giving their money to global warming skeptics I will be on your side. Until then it's just speech.
So Gary can i assume that you are Anti the mclame foolsgold legislation?
I think you should explain, actually, because the fact is a corporation is an entity. An entity does not have rights. Simple.
There is nothing you can ever find to refute that. The PEOPLE that govern, manage,oversee, strategize, etc. have rights. The shareholders have the right to expect returns on their investment from the suits they hire. Inanimate things do not have rights. Just as a union does not have rights, the MEMBERS collectively or apart have rights.
An entity is still not a person. This was supported by the courts, and will be again.
Of course they can fund whatever the hell they want, as this is permissable activity under corporate law.
Donkey you are the idiot discussing if a corporation has rights. Again: Once more.People have rights. Thats the law. A car does not have the right to park, a house does not pay property tax.
You were the one who got into all that.
An entity can conduct business for the purposes of making money.
They can use said money for production, lobbying, scholarships, whatever.
Your point is that to restrict the actions of a corporation violates established law and that is correct.
Spiderman is stupid but it was probably written in exasperation because YOU disputed if an entity is human which is ridiculous.
But you started it. Own up.
Lily are the voices in your head acting up again?
Its always semantics with you people. If you agree with Snowe and Rockefeller then just say so. Its ok, embrace your inner commie.
Nowhere did I say that corps have the same rights as human beings. Nowhere.
Once again I will reiterate...
Exxon has the right to donate money to whoever and whatever the fuck they want, and for United States Senators to demand they stop doing so is not only wrong but its very dangerous.
If you disagree with me fine by all means do, but please try to address the points I make and not play these silly word games as its a waste of my time.
Sorry donkey but i gotta go with the commies on this one. You knew what gary meant, especially when he reiterated the "strictly speaking" thing.
Then again i tried to bring it back on point with my comment but lily went back to the word games......Holy shit i have to go against donkey and lily and side with GARY on this one?????
The Apocolypse may indeed be upon us.........
What are you agreeing with? That corps dont have rights?
Then you are a fuckin retard too.
"A corporation is an artificial legal entity (technically, a juristic person) which, while made up of a number of natural persons or other legal entities, has a separate legal identity from them."
"As a legal entity the corporation receives legal rights and duties. Five rights always exist for a corporation: the ability to sue and be sued (this gives the corporation access to the courts); the right to a common treasury (this gives the right to hold assets separate from the assets of its members); the right to hire agents (this gives the corporation the right to hire employees) the right to a common seal (this gives the corporation the right to sign contracts); and the right to make by-laws (this gives the corporation the right to govern its internal affairs). Governments and courts may add other rights and duties. These will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (see Cooke (1950)) The granting of additional rights to corporations is often very controversial."
"The law typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person). Under such a doctrine (traditionally seen as a legal fiction), a corporation enjoys many of the rights and obligations of individual persons, such as the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes, have certain constitutional rights, and otherwise participate in society. (Note that corporations do not possess all the rights appertaining to individuals: in most jurisdictions, for example, a corporation cannot become a citizen nor vote.) On the other hand, corporations often have rights not granted to individuals"
Hate to admit but sourced from Wiki. So help me god Rhino, Im gonna punch you straight shot to the pussy for your defiance.
My original points stands.
Now Im done with this game of Mumbo Jumbo
Hmmm.. the 5 rights they mention do not seem to include freedom of speech. And they describe a corporation as a "fictional person"--just like Spiderman! I win!
Post a Comment