261–270 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you strangle yourself with my arm, did I murder you?
My comment was clearly a joke; however yes, in the jurisdiction I am living in, you would be assisting in euthanasia, which would render you liable for murder.
if it's the same in NZ, maybe the river should get some sort of limited license for euthanasia assistance!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then why does a corporation need freedom of speech etc?
If a group of workers create a Union, should the Union be allowed free speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if corporations aren’t people, then the New York Times has no right to the First Amendment.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it binds the government. The first amendment is a law that disallows the government from taking actions to infringe on any human's inherent rights, be they individuals or in a group.
That annoys people because Pfizer is going to advocate for things some people might not like. But that's the cost of a rule that makes it so the NY Times can advocate for things other people might not like.
https://rsehgallaw.com/2024/06/30/why-producers-set-up-singl...
The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These differ…
United States of America v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque
The title of this blog post is deliberately provocative. If it was titled "Unexpected things that have legal personhood" it would be much less catchy. No one is actually arguing these things are human beings. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
> It’s more like the New Zealand parliament reified a god and gave it a multi-million dollar trust fund to get on its feet. (joke) So if the Whanganui river floods well beyond its expected banks and ruins my property, can I sue it?
There’s already a concept of acts of God in contracts so probably not? Like you couldn’t sue the Christian god for hitting you with lightning or whatever.
What if we make that god a legal person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a group of workers create a Union, should the Union be allowed free speech?
I believe it would be redundant to explicitly grant freedom of speech to an organization such as a union, as its individual members inherently possess this right.
> 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. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. Absolutely - the legal abstraction is that corporations are corporations, not people. The article went with a lighter hearted quip but here's my own tired old one: If corporations are people, then owning shares is unconstitutional as that would be a form of slavery.
Not correct: A share is a contract issued by the corporation entitling its owner to a share of future profits. So you're not buying a corporation, just engaging in a contract with it. I hate Citizens United as much as the next guy, but this isn't a good argument against it.
I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC and it seems to me like a plain reading of the first amendment supports CU’s position.
Wouldn’t the opposing view imply that you are allowed to have political opinions, but only as long as you go at it alone and don’t organize too much with others?
For all I know that might indeed be a better way of running society, but that’s definitely going to take a big constitutional amendment.
Thought provoking. Most people who (quite reasonably) hate corporate personhood would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that personhood for a river can/should be normalized. The thing with temples stems ultimately from fairly practical matters if they hold such treasure, but it's a magnet for strife, and actually kind of surprising that in the case-study mentioned they resisted the opportunity to justify abuse of po…