"Corporations free speech" usually refers to the freedom of giving money to politicians, not the freedom of a PR to speech

Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?

Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).

That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so.

And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is.

But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.

No, it's simply not so

A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.

I think I did explain more than enough

If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.

"Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief.

You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.

No, I explained my conclusion multiple times but you don't seem to have noticed it.

I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is:

* what I've always known

* obvious on the face of it

* apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement

You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.

That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…

It's definitely you who has to read again the thread.

I did and I've gotten the nth confirmation that you're not really reading what I write, and maybe not really here for a discussion

You've said over and over again how you don't want to talk about the subject, yet you keep replying. I'm just making sure people understand this isn't the strategy of someone who knows what they're talking about, and you're cooperating magnificently.

You keep replying without addressing what's been talked about.

I know you're not supposed to say that here, but at this point I can't imagine you're doing anything else than trolling.

Honestly anyhow I have a distaste for US right of speech and its enormously broad interpretation, so I'm not too interested in debating its applications.

(I support the right to express your opinions, at most)

I also think that at the base of most US problems there's the freedom to corrupt politicians ("lobbying"), so, yeah, I really don't care much how legal it is

But you seem utterly incapable of justifying those beliefs to others...

Your beliefs are worthless to everyone else if you can't explain them, and no all you've done so far is declare what you believe to be correct, and have crumpled at the slightest sign of resistance. That demonstrates the weakness of your belief.

My reply is: whatever.

If you're here to win debates for the sake of it, you can have the last word.

I only mentioned those beliefs and I'm not interested in debating them in a hacker news thread, right now.

This isn’t a debate, this is me getting you to reveal how little weight you have behind what you believe.

This is useful because if anyone else reads this, they will get a pretty standard idea of how people who think like you can’t really justify their beliefs when challenged.

I do appreciate it, but I doubt you do. Easier to dismiss me and ignore any dissent, than it is to consider that you might actually be the bad guy here.

I told you this approach weakens your advocacy. Too bad you can’t listen.

I TRIED to debate the core of the issue, and you haven't read what I said.

This branch of the thread was just about a mention of some ideas that I have no intention to discuss right now.

Not that you offered any support for your ideas, other than "I think that my constitution says so".

If you're for freedom of companies corrupting politicians and politicians lying to everyone, you're free to be, maybe you're on the side who benefits from it.

I was hoping to have closed the discussion about eight messages ago, I'm not really here for this.

Tyranny cloaks itself in morality. Nothing new. I hope most people know we don’t need that kind of advocacy.

Morality is what separates us from animals. The suggestion right and wrong don’t exist is the real tyranny. It's what evil people say to do evil things.