Corporate Free Speech "Rights"

by Molly Ivins

Some of you may not be aware that corporations HAVE First Amendment rights. It does seem sort of silly, since the Constitution clearly states that it is written for "We the people of the United States." It does not say "the people and the corporations of the United States."

Nevertheless, corporations have been held to be "persons" under the Constitution ever since a particularly screwy decision in 1886 called Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a decision that ought to be more famous and more discussed than Roe vs. Wade. Well, it's time to take heed, because those corporations -- Inc., Corp. and Swoosh -- have not only been granted rights, they are now busily taking away YOUR rights just as fast as they can.

In a little-noted decision in early June, the Supremes declined to limit the way that telephone companies can use information about their customers to market new services on the grounds that it would infringe on U.S. West's free-speech rights. What this means is another erosion of your privacy, allowing phone companies to study your calling habits without your permission.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, "Local phone companies have vast databanks about each customer's calling habits, including who they call, how long they talk and what types of telecommunications services they purchase."

For example, when you call your local phone company's customer service, you hear a recording telling you the company needs your permission to use your billing information to sell you new services. The customer must then press 1 to grant said permission. This is the "opt-in" system required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was infamously biased in favor of the industry to begin with, and now the Supremes have just made it even more worthless.

U.S. West sued, saying that the rule violated the company's freedom of speech by limiting the kinds of contact that the company could have with its customers. And you know how your phone company likes to keep in touch. Especially during dinner.

Another corporate menace to free speech is the proliferating number of "John Doe" lawsuits being filed against Internet users who say anything critical about a corporation. On message boards run by Yahoo, Raging Bull, Silicon Investor and America Online, intrepid citizens make observations ranging from "This company stinks" to "Sell now! They just lost their biggest contract." Naturally, the companies are furious and file these John Doe suits to find out who posted the messages.

Heaven forbid that YOU should have a right to say anything negative about dear old Inter-Global Mega-Universal Widget. Some Net users are suing back to halt the corporate lawsuits aimed at uncovering their identities.

The Supremes' worst decision in this vein, in my opinion, is still the 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo stinker that held that money IS free speech in politics -- hence, any attempt to control money in politics is a violation of free speech. Happily, the court did rule in January that a Missouri law limiting the contributions that individuals can give to a political candidate during a single election campaign is constitutional.

As Scott Turow wrote three years ago, every citizen has opinions of political matters. Few have money to promote their beliefs. As long as politicians must approach the well-to-do on bended knee to secure their chances for election, it is inevitable that the concerns of that narrow segment of society will have a disproportionate influence on national policy.

Duh. Just remember -- as Milton Friedman, The Man himself, said: The only social responsibility of corporations is to increase profits.