"Da Mayor" At Work

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to
the
group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...).

"French?"
--
Jay Honeck

Oh, You're so BAD, Jay! g

Do me a favor, (and others, too) and leave the "Jay wrote" or "whoever
wrote" at the top of the post when you snip. It makes seeing who the author
of the thread was, so much easier. Thanks!
--
Jim in NC

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA.

Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones.

The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have "double rights". If I run a corporation I have my
personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of course is under my control).

Eric Law


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.

How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.

In article ,
"EL" wrote:

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state
actually is not true at least in the USA.

?


Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been
established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better
known ones.

corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article
,
Bob Noel wrote:


corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.


Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
those stockholders -- and they're a group.

AES wrote:

Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
those stockholders -- and they're a group.

That would be like saying that I do whatever my car does.

First off, the stockholders do not have any control over the corporation (with
the exception of the one, if there is one, who owns the majority of the stock).
The board of directors controls a corporation. Assuming that the board is in
agreement, then the corporation (an entity) does what the board wants it to do.
But the corporation is not a group. What is done by the corporation is not
necessarily done by the stockholders.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"AES" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Bob Noel wrote:


corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a
group.


Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
those stockholders -- and they're a group.

As a group of individuals. See earlier post about gains/loses.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"EL" wrote:

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you
state
actually is not true at least in the USA.

?


Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has
been
established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the
better
known ones.

corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a
group.

Correct. You'd not gain/lose rights as a family member, either.

"EL" wrote in message
m...
Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state
actually is not true at least in the USA.

Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been
established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better
known ones.


ANd a corporation is en entity comprised of individuals; they neither gain,
nor lose, any rights by virtue of their incorporation. In the same way, you
neither gain nor lose rights by virtue of your being a member of a HUGE
group or a group of one.


The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have
"double rights". If I run a corporation I have my
personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of
course is under my control).

You have the right you originally hold as an individual and your rights as
spokesman for the corporation derives from that right. Again, you are
neither gaining any rights, nor should you lose any.

Eric Law


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.

How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.