Re: persons?

[Chris Pall <x97pall@wmich.edu>]

Well, no - because you would be censoring an individual who owns the rights to
an article - not the NYT. It's content that is censored, not presses. The
government couldn't "stop" the presses either because it's a property issue.
Nor search and siezure since the presses are owned by people - not a company.
In fact, corporations are easier to corrupt since there is a clear line of
command. Spread ownership and responsibility througout and you've got
distributed power.

At least I think that's what's given here.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> If corporations have no rights (and you have a fairly good if predicatable
> leftist rant below, don't get me wrong), let's censor the New York Times
> Co.!
>
> After all, the First Amendment should only apply to one individual with his
> own printing press. Internet service providers should be subject to
> government regulation and confiscation of contraband hard drives and
> crypto-apps, and bookstores should be able to be raided by armed FBI agents
> without search warrants hunting for subversive literature -- since
> corporations don't have rights!
>
> Yes, I like this line of thinking. Not only does it show a deep respect for
> history, but a sincere appreciation for freedom and liberty. The best of
> both worlds!
>
> -Declan
>
> At 17:03 -0400 4/22/98, John H.St.John wrote:
> >The root cause of the absurdity of a corporation having constitutional
> >rights
> [...]

 

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
                       Christopher Pall
                      ThinkBiz, DPS, WMU
                       Ann Arbor, MI USA

                      x97pall@wmich.edu
       http://members.tripod.com/~ChrisPall/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------