| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1174.1 | Bad luck... | MU::PORTER | it's 4AM inside my mind... | Thu Aug 30 1990 23:20 | 4 |
| I think it is - I seem to recall a mention in a newspaper
article.
But I'm not certain of this.
|
| 1174.2 | It's called freedom of speech. | TOTH::PREVIDI | | Fri Aug 31 1990 13:20 | 8 |
| > political in nature. Even if I agreed with them, I would not feel
> right about my employer endorsing (explicitly or implicitly) their
> activities.
Corporations have the same First Amendment rights
as individuals.
|
| 1174.3 | Is this true? | DEMING::WILSON | | Wed Sep 05 1990 00:01 | 8 |
| Re -1: Do corporations have the same First Amendment rights as
individuals?
Not to wander, but the corporation derives its existence from the
state, unlike individuals. I've often wondered where in the constitution
a limited liability corporation is equated with an individual..
John Wilson
|
| 1174.4 | What does the First Amendment have to do with it? | MARVIN::COCKBURN | nemo me impune lacessit | Wed Sep 05 1990 05:15 | 26 |
|
Re .2
What does the First Amendment have to do with anything? I assume you're
talking about 'Freedom of Speech'.
As I understand it, Freedom of Speech merely allows the Massachusetts
High Tech Council to exist and have a political opinion if it wishes.
(so long as it isn't Communist, but that's another rathole).
Anyway, what is being discussed is whether Digital should make a
contribution to such a society, not whether such a society should
exist. I don't see the connection with Freedom of Speech I'm afraid.
Digital UK donates large sums of money to an _extremely_ political
organisation. It's called the Conservative Party. With Britain being
one of the three countries in the world without a written constitution,
it seems you don't need to resort to constitutional 'rights' to
justify this behaviour.
It is Digitals money, and it does with that money what it deems best
for the Company, it's shareholders and it's employees. If supporting
a political organisation or party is good for the company, then what's
the problem?
Craig.
|
| 1174.5 | Corporations are individuals | ISLNDS::HAMER | | Wed Sep 05 1990 08:25 | 9 |
| I don't know about the Mass High Tech Council, but since the 1880's (or
early '90s, I forget the exact date) corporations have been defined as
"individuals" by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case that led to that
decision was about due process. The court ruled a corporation could not
be deprived of property without the same due process as an individual.
The case specifically addressed the 14th amendment and the rights of
states to regulate corporation behavior.
John H.
|
| 1174.6 | What I learned in Jr. High social studies | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Sep 05 1990 09:38 | 5 |
| re .-1:
I believe the equation is corporation = person, not corporation = individual.
Laws that are to be applied to real people sometimes use the term "natural
person." I suppose that makes a corporation an unnatural person.
|
| 1174.7 | a textbook example | BCSE::KREFETZ | Reality is the fiction we live by. | Wed Sep 05 1990 11:46 | 11 |
| corporation = person (de jure)
corporation <> person (de facto)
displaced person = person (de facto)
displaced person <> person (de jure)
[To forestall the inevitable question: A `displaced person' is someone
without a country, a citizen of nowhere. There was a time following
World War II when DP would not have been taken to mean Data
Processing.]
|
| 1174.8 | Back to the question: | LASSIE::OFSEVIT | card-carrying member | Wed Sep 05 1990 12:42 | 3 |
| So does Digital have anything to do with this organization, or not?
David
|
| 1174.9 | | MU::PORTER | it's 4AM inside my mind... | Wed Sep 05 1990 13:25 | 7 |
| re .6
> I suppose that makes a corporation an unnatural person.
Does that mean anything a corporation does is
an "unnatural act" ?
|
| 1174.10 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Sep 05 1990 14:23 | 1 |
| David, why don't you call Corporate Public Relations and ask?
|
| 1174.11 | | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Sep 07 1990 14:51 | 4 |
| . . . and let us all know what they had to say.
-Jack
|
| 1174.12 | DEC is part of Mass High Tech Council | AMELIA::SEGAL | Len Segal, MLO6-1/U30, 223-7687 | Fri Sep 07 1990 19:07 | 8 |
| As I recall, during Dukakis' 1st attempt at governing Mass, KO was
chairman/president of the Mass High Tech Council. Thus, I do
believe that DEC is a member of said organization.
I vividly recall a news story where Ken told the Duke that he would
not expand DEC in Mass due to the negative business climate that the
Duke was pursuing. After this happened, DEC opened a number of
new facilities in Merrimack, Hudson, and Nashua NH.
|