Caitlin, bravo! This is an excellent review of the sociological/political reasons why free expression is so important and therefor why corporations must respect first amendment rights. You "get it" that "there exists no institution that can be entrusted with the power to determine who is qualified to criticize the status quo, because they're all inseparably intertwined with it." You even have the humility to understand that what you personally believe may be "misinformation" today regarding Covid-19, you may accept as truth tomorrow when you gather more information through the speech of others. Though, it's not objective reality or Truth that would change, only your individual understanding of it.
I would only suggest that "the free flow of speech lets [individuals in] the collective sort out truth from falsehood and conduct itself [nee, themselves] accordingly." As those individuals are allowed to make reasoned arguments and peaceful demonstrations of dissent, they will gradually affect the overall consensus. It's not the freedom of "the collective" that's important, but of the individuals that make up that collective consciousness. A minor point but one I personally think important.
That's why I'm so adamant about the distinction between corporations and individuals in any political/economic system whether you call it "capitalism" or "socialism," and why I insist on the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Your arguments, valid as they are in sociological/political contexts, provide government with no compelling legal justification for applying first amendment protections to individuals when dealing with corporations. Corporations are created by GOVERNMENTs through the chartering process. They are therefor part of the government. Indeed, in today's environment they ARE the "de facto" government as evident from Time magazine's boast that the 2020 election were "fortified". That's why it's so important for corporate speech platforms to be restricted from censorship in EXACTLY the same way as government. On the other hand, the private owner of a bakery must not be COMPELLED to a specific expression on a wedding cake, though he can and should be compelled to provide service to a couple with whom he may have a philosophical or religions disagreement.
The "service" would be creating a wedding cake. It the customer insists on expression that conflicts with the baker's convictions, he should have every right to refuse that expression.
Only by so narrowly defining service are we to arrive at your conclusion. I forget what the exact results were in this case. Do you happen to remember?
No, don't remember. I do remember I initially sympathized with the plaintiffs but later concluded they likely contracted with that bakery precisely because they knew of the owner's views.
Caitlin, bravo! This is an excellent review of the sociological/political reasons why free expression is so important and therefor why corporations must respect first amendment rights. You "get it" that "there exists no institution that can be entrusted with the power to determine who is qualified to criticize the status quo, because they're all inseparably intertwined with it." You even have the humility to understand that what you personally believe may be "misinformation" today regarding Covid-19, you may accept as truth tomorrow when you gather more information through the speech of others. Though, it's not objective reality or Truth that would change, only your individual understanding of it.
I would only suggest that "the free flow of speech lets [individuals in] the collective sort out truth from falsehood and conduct itself [nee, themselves] accordingly." As those individuals are allowed to make reasoned arguments and peaceful demonstrations of dissent, they will gradually affect the overall consensus. It's not the freedom of "the collective" that's important, but of the individuals that make up that collective consciousness. A minor point but one I personally think important.
That's why I'm so adamant about the distinction between corporations and individuals in any political/economic system whether you call it "capitalism" or "socialism," and why I insist on the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Your arguments, valid as they are in sociological/political contexts, provide government with no compelling legal justification for applying first amendment protections to individuals when dealing with corporations. Corporations are created by GOVERNMENTs through the chartering process. They are therefor part of the government. Indeed, in today's environment they ARE the "de facto" government as evident from Time magazine's boast that the 2020 election were "fortified". That's why it's so important for corporate speech platforms to be restricted from censorship in EXACTLY the same way as government. On the other hand, the private owner of a bakery must not be COMPELLED to a specific expression on a wedding cake, though he can and should be compelled to provide service to a couple with whom he may have a philosophical or religions disagreement.
Is not the message on the wedding cake the exact "service" the customers are paying for?
The "service" would be creating a wedding cake. It the customer insists on expression that conflicts with the baker's convictions, he should have every right to refuse that expression.
Only by so narrowly defining service are we to arrive at your conclusion. I forget what the exact results were in this case. Do you happen to remember?
No, don't remember. I do remember I initially sympathized with the plaintiffs but later concluded they likely contracted with that bakery precisely because they knew of the owner's views.