Comments on: Librarians Supporting Free “Political Speech”

By: I Like Books

I Like Books — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:31:53 +0000

I am both part of a corporation, in that I work for it, and an owner of it, in that I own stock in it. They can say whatever they want, but they’re not going to ask me about it. Some of that money they’re spending is mine, but they really couldn’t care less what I think of it.

That’s the problem I have with it. Corporation-as-person is useful in the sense that small and highly liquid units of ownership can be traded with limited liability and without having to reincorporate every time a share is bought and sold. But free speech? That gives a small number of people free use of a lot of other people’s money.

By: Belinda Gomez

Belinda Gomez — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:42:58 +0000

It’s not popular but if some corporations can declare their political opinions, like the NYTimes and the Washington Post, why not other corporations? If you disagree with their message, you don’t have to buy their products.

By: spencer

spencer — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:42:16 +0000

Corporations are owned by stockholders- which are people. the 1st amendment of them transfers to the corporation, right? I mean, they are the one’s paying for it. Nothing stops them from doing so outside the corporation. Nothing stops you from not buying what the corporation is selling.

Of course corporations aren’t all evil. They are driven by the interests of their shareholders. (a lot of which are members of pension programs). These interests are getting the most money returned on their investment. Bottom line is, it’s removed a few steps from your kid’s teacher, or yourself and your city/university’s pension system. They are bound to make you as much money as they can- that’s the promise they made you when you invested in them (even indirectly). To this end, they often find it useful to lobby or support certain political positions- in order to (what they think will) give them the best outcome for making the most amount of money for their investors.

Is that evil? No, I don’t think it is. Can we do without them? Yes. Go ahead. Pull your money out of companies you don’t like- and petition your pension plan to do the same. That is the power you have. If people stop investing the corporation with either change it’s ways or go away.

By: Libraryman

Libraryman — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:56:11 +0000

I don’t know, I can see the point of view. I think it is rather funny that we have this knee-jerk reactions to corporations as being evil. I mean I even couldn’t believe that they are NOT evil and I really don’t have any evidence to prove that they are, in fact, evil. It just seems like COMMON KNOWLEDGE that a corporation is up to no good.
After all, there has never been anything stopping wealthy private citizens from pooling their money to produce political viewpoints.

By: Randal Powell

Randal Powell — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:23:44 +0000

The notion that corporations are people is ludicrous, and very bad for our country. Real people need to start fighting for their rights and interests.

By: Fat Guy

Fat Guy — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:51:29 +0000

“Corpo-rations (see what I did there?)”

Wow. The manure is so thick around you you’ve forgotten what fresh air is like. Fat Guy out.

By: bleh

bleh — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:12:30 +0000

And thanks to deregulation and consolidation, it’s become virtually impossible to take a meaningful stand against those massive (and massively dislikable) companies that engage in the sorts of practices that you feel the world would be better left without. This may be the political society that we’ve constructed, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good one.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:07:27 +0000

elder,

it is a form of censorship- absolutely.It might not be outright, textbook censorship, but making some materials available over others based on personal political preference (or rather, intentionally making some point of view more difficult to access for your own political reasons) is at the core of censorship.

a censor is- “an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.”

To me supressing the whole- or making the whole more difficuly to access- is equal to (at least) suppressing the part.

By: Formerprof

Formerprof — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:56:59 +0000

SCOTUS got this decision correct. Corpo-rations (see what I did there?) are “people” for the purposes of free speech. Just like every other group of people under the sun (labor unions, advocacy groups, professional groups, etc.), corporations have interest in influencing policy and political debate. They are perfectly within their rights to pool their money to support “their guy” or “their legislation.” If you don’t like the influence they have, you’re perfectly within your rights to build your group to counteract their influence. You are also perfectly free to boycott (and organize others to boycott) corporation who have political activity with which you disagree. This is the political society we have constructed.

By: ElderLibrarian

ElderLibrarian — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:42:32 +0000

Spencer:
Removing books from a library collection is not censorship. To censor something is to alter a part of a work (taking the n-word out of Huckleberry Finn) or banning a work by government action (I think this happened with certain racy books in this country). In the U.S. a library patron can either use interlibrary loan or buy a copy or borrow from another source-like their opininated uncle.
A library should be buying books based on need, academic or community standards (sometimes these standards are not what we might personally approve). It also depends on how much money you got to spend. No library can buy everything that comes down the pike, this is where policy comes in.