Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United

Prof. Bozian: Actually, the First Amendment doesn�t refer to freedom of speech of the people. (�The people� appears with regard to the right to petition.) But in any event, the argument below would suggest that corporations that own newspapers, advocacy groups such as the ACLU, churches, unions, and all sorts of other groups would likewise not have any rights to freedom of speech or of the press. Of course they do and should have such rights, because when such groups speak, what that really means is that people are speaking through those groups. And what goes for media corporations, nonprofit corporations, and other groups that aren�t themselves �people� likewise goes for business corporations.

Eugene Volokh

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Richard C. Bozian
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:39 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United

Floyd Abrams has written a masterful exposition of the Citizens United decision. It is a classical repetition of the fallacy of Xeno's Paradox which had the hare never catching the tortoise. One can justify anything by starting with a faulty assumption.

He justifies the decision on the basis of the 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment refers to freedom of speech of "the people". Corporations are not people anymore than is a robot performing human feats. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that emerged from an interpretation of a court's deliberation that never examined or even considered corporate personhood.

I am impressed only with his craftsmanship.

Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P.
Professor Emeritus of Medicne
University of Cincinnati.