IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Shadowrun IRL: Extra Territoriality IRL?, The Rights of Corporations & Colber Report
CanadianWolverin...
post Sep 24 2009, 04:32 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 22-June 09
From: Ucluelet - Tofino - Nanaimo Salish-Sahide Council
Member No.: 17,309



Hoo boy, potentially the scariest "This is similar to Shadowrun!" thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/...tml?_r=1&hp

QUOTE
Editorial
The Rights of Corporations
Published: September 21, 2009

The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.

This Supreme Court, the John Roberts court, seems to be having trouble with that. It has been on a campaign to increase corporations’ legal rights — based on the conviction of some conservative justices that businesses are, at least legally, not much different than people.

Now the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season. There is a real danger that the case will expand corporations’ rights in ways that would undermine the election system.

...


And if you like your dystopian future in a more entertaining comical fashion, I present to you a The Word segment on The Colbert Report (at about 3:52 onwards):

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbe...des/#clip213030

So, what's next, Corporations get the right to bare arms? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Edit: Oh, turns out this isn't the first case like this either:
Source: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=101608
QUOTE
Hachface says:
Also consider a similar case that never made it to the Supreme Court, Nike v. Kasky ( http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/nike.htm ), in which Nike was going to argue that its press releases and letters to editors denying the use of sweatshop labor were not commercial speech; corporations and businesspeople can be held legally liable for misleading statements in commercial speech, but private citizens enjoy First Amendment protections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th February 2025 - 11:24 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.