Hacker News Reader

> Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions.

True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath.

Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one.

Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film

United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

You want more?

> A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person

But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.

> The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations.

A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold?

The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.

>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons"

They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.

People is a plural form of person.

Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.

The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being".

An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation."

Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction.

A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on.

A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it.

So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.

Legal and common definitions are often at odds.

Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not.

The law defines personhood for biological entities too.

One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person.

This is nothing new.

If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.