this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
82 points (97.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43901 readers
1968 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 53 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That's pre-21st century though.

[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

It’s a bad enough idea we don’t need anymore for the next few centuries.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

According to someone else in here, it was 19th, and that sounds right to me. I'm guessing early 19th.

It's just a neat, tidy legal fiction for some purposes.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Negative. Corporate personhood predates Citizens United v. FCC (which is what I assume you're referring to). IMO: The ruling itself still counts as an answer to the original question though!

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is that really a 21st century idea? I would have thought that was a reaganomics reform tbh

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

well citizens united was 21st and encoded it in law.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 4 months ago

I bet it effects you more negatively than decisions your country has mad unless your british or not a democracy.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a 19th century idea that appeared in the published decision of the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

Only—get this—it wasn't even what the Court decided. Instead, it was the guy in charge of recording the decision for publication who declared "corporate personhood" in the headnote (summary) of the case. And would it surprise you to learn that the guy was the former president of a railroad company? We just sort of went along with this not-precedent until the Citizens United case.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

yeah but citizens united codified it into us law.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

Not quite. The Santa Clara decision gave corporations equal protection under the 14th Amendment, is law in the same sense that Citizens United is, and has been applied many, many times. The 2010 decision held that 1st Amendment protections apply to corporations.