Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 265 posts

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#101

Post by MattGaiser »

ecf wrote: post #63
pg_bot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone would bring up Citizens United v FEC when I said worst. I know this will be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe that case was decided correctly. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Kennedy's opinion that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech" Read the opinions and d…

Let’s say it loud and clear for everyone to hear. MONEY. IS. NOT. SPEECH

The problem is that such an attitude can be turned against newspapers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co....

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#102

Post by klyrs »

geofft wrote: post #91
staticautomatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don’t have speech interests. The majority’s opinion in Citizens United is premised upon the assertion that they do.

If a state passed a law that corporations may not put a kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional? (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!) The problem here is that there's no simple or intuitive description of the solution we want besides "The right to free speech does not extend to the…

> If a state passed a law that corporations may not put a kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional?

No, but not for the company, but for the harm that would cause harm to practitioners of their respective religions.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#103

Post by staticman2 »

Accujack wrote: post #62
pg_bot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone would bring up Citizens United v FEC when I said worst. I know this will be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe that case was decided correctly. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Kennedy's opinion that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech" Read the opinions and d…

Yes. People blame the court for doing the correct (if not right, because courts don't really do "right") thing. The problem is that there's no constitutional amendment making an exception to the first amendment to limit or forbid contributions to campaigns. It should never have been an ordinary law in the first place.

Since money is not speech there is no first amendment issue. There is however a conservative court determined to have the wealthy own politicians.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#104

Post by 8bitsrule »

quasse wrote: post #9

This entire project was a shameful example of political pump-and-dump by our former governor. He sold the more gullible elements of our state on this fairy tale about Foxconn, got lots of air time and Trump points out of it, made an abortive presidential run, and then got replaced and slunk into the shadows before the music stopped. Now our new Governor is left cleaning up the embarrassing mess while simultaneously b…

Promises are easy, ask any politician.

Now it sounds a lot like what Bush left behind for Obama.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#106

Post by staticman2 »

Lazare wrote: post #94
ineedasername wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, and I don't like the decision, but there is a correlation with money none the less. Exercising speech takes resources. I cannot speak to the audience of newspaper readers without either investing capital to create a newspaper or by paying for ad placement in an existing one. Money is not, in itself, speech, but in our society it is integral to exercising that right at any scale much beyond a few individuals.…

> I think the main problem with the decision was the assertion that entities like corporations, rather than simply individuals, have free speech. The decision did not assert or assume this. It rested on the idea that individual have rights, and they do not lose those rights by acting collectively. If I'm allowed to speak, then I'm allowed to buy and use a printing press so that my speech can be more easily distribute…

There is no right to form a corporation in the constitution, so any claim that a corporation has rights is nonsense.

And corporations are not just people acting collectively, they are financial instruments that incentivize certain behavior.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#107

Post by staticautomatic »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #81
staticautomatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don’t have speech interests. The majority’s opinion in Citizens United is premised upon the assertion that they do.

Sure they do. Corporations are owned by people, and those people have speech interests. If corporations didn’t have the right to free speech then a group of people campaigning for a politics cause would suddenly lose their right to free speech if they formed a corporation to simplify the activities, such as the joint handling of money or purchasing of ads.

No. The owners have speech interests because they are people. The corporation itself does not.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#108

Post by Reelin »

geofft wrote: post #91
staticautomatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don’t have speech interests. The majority’s opinion in Citizens United is premised upon the assertion that they do.

If a state passed a law that corporations may not put a kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional? (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!) The problem here is that there's no simple or intuitive description of the solution we want besides "The right to free speech does not extend to the…

> kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional

... no? It would be a law more or less targeting a particular religion. That's against both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Unless I'm missing something here?

> (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!)

Serious question: Why can't they? They're groups of people after all. (I'm not sure how that would fit with protected classes under federal employment law though. If a company openly supports a particular religion is that potentially a form of discrimination?)

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#109

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #91
staticautomatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don’t have speech interests. The majority’s opinion in Citizens United is premised upon the assertion that they do.

If a state passed a law that corporations may not put a kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional? (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!) The problem here is that there's no simple or intuitive description of the solution we want besides "The right to free speech does not extend to the…

[deleted]

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#110

Post by lamp_book »

kristianov wrote: post #38
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Foxconn get out of it? From the article they seem to have lost lots of money.

Terry Gou was running for president of taiwan, and he needed support and endorsement from Trump. He got it, and he still lost.

At least that parallels Walker's story well...
Post reply on HN