janelane wrote: AT&T can no longer feel his hands and feet.
AT&T is people! AT&T is people! -janelane, post-apocalyptic fan
I don't really agree with the left's campaign against the concept of corporate personhood. The idea, unless I don't understand it, is that corporations don't have rights, only people do. For example, the thinking goes that corporations don't have the right to freedom of speech. Nike doesn't have the right to freedom of speech, for example, so its OK to regulate anything Nike publishes. But every newspaper in the United States is a corporation. Do newspapers not have a right to freedom of the press? In 10 years of arguments over corporate personhood I have not heard any articulate explanation of how the left's view can be reconciled with freedom of the press in the context of newspapers. What about freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? Is it OK for the government to raid the offices of Nike without a warrant? What about non-profit political organizations? Every non-profit political organization is a corporation. Can their offices be raided without warrants? What if their offices were raided, and their trade secrets, client lists, internal email discussions, and other confidential information were collected by the police. Would it be reasonable for the police to publish all of that information on the open internet based on an FOIA request? That seems to be what is an issue in this case, and it seems to be that AT&T has a right to privacy regarding this sort of information regardless of whether or not they are a "person." RE: FCC v. AT&T reveals the limits of corporate personhood at the Supreme Court. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine | 
