Corporations are not extensions of the Public Square. It is perfectly reasonable to require certain behavior as part of an employment agreement. If I ran a hamburger stand, I would fire any employee who gave political commentary or rant while serving hamburgers. And, if one chooses to air grievances against one's employer in the Public Square (i.e. on the Internet, or in newspapers), it is perfectly understandable that the employer would dismiss the employee.
To say "the Constitution does not apply to corporations" is in one way simply false: all legal entities (people, corporations, government) are required to adhere to the rule of law -- law founded on the Constitution.
But the bigger point is: the Constitution's purpose is not to protect individuals from corporations -- it's to protect us from _Government_.
Comments
Old news, at best; or, misleading hype, at worst.
Corporations are not extensions of the Public Square. It is perfectly reasonable to require certain behavior as part of an employment agreement. If I ran a hamburger stand, I would fire any employee who gave political commentary or rant while serving hamburgers. And, if one chooses to air grievances against one's employer in the Public Square (i.e. on the Internet, or in newspapers), it is perfectly understandable that the employer would dismiss the employee.
To say "the Constitution does not apply to corporations" is in one way simply false: all legal entities (people, corporations, government) are required to adhere to the rule of law -- law founded on the Constitution.
But the bigger point is: the Constitution's purpose is not to protect individuals from corporations -- it's to protect us from _Government_.
"But the bigger point is: the Constitution's purpose is not to protect individuals from corporations -- it's to protect us from _Government_."
Although technically correct, I think the insinuation of your phrasing is misleading.
The Constitution does 2 things:
a) establish the federal govt
b) delegate certain, limited powers.
Does the constitution not provide the platform for how citizens' natural rights are protected (Article 3)?
Yes, rights with respect to Government. Article III addresses the power of the courts.
Isn't the ultimate purpose to protect (the natural rights) of citizens, period?
I.e. protect citizens against the mob (government), other individuals, and other legal entities?
If not, then why would the constitution delegate certain powers to the Federal Government?
I think the Constitution defines, beyond the definitions of the core institutions of power, the bounds of power over its citizens.
Laws, passed by Congress, define the rights of individuals with respect to each other, employers, etc...as well as the government.
I'm not claiming large authority here -- just recalling civics and government as I was taught.