| |||||||||||||
Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register)Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register)Posted Aug 25, 2012 0:07 UTC (Sat) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register) by drag Parent article: Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register)
<troll>
Well, according to the Supreme Court, corporations ARE individuals. </troll>
(Log in to post comments)
Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register) Posted Aug 25, 2012 4:52 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
Actually, the court stated that a corporation is "an association with a corporate form".
Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register) Posted Aug 25, 2012 16:06 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The SCOTUS ruling in the 'Citizens United' only established that because you work for a corporation you do not lose your rights to free speech. That's it. If the government had the right to regulate the speech of people that belong to corporations they would have the same rights to control the speech of people that belong to unions, political parties, or protest groups or any other such organization.
The claim that the 'supreme court ruled corporation is a person' misrepresentation of the worst kind and was done purely for propaganda purposes. It really needs to go away.
Has cash corrupted open source? (The Register) Posted Aug 25, 2012 23:01 UTC (Sat) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
I wasn't actually referring to Citizen United, I was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood. It's an old concept that goes back to at least the 19th century.
Personally I think the Citizens United ruling was a good thing, because the campaign finance system was hopelessly broken. It was another case of good intentions, but bad results in the real world. Anyone with enough money could easily abuse the system; only the small grassroots guys might run afoul of it. So kind of like the patent system-- great in theory, terrible in practice.
|
|||||||||||||