icegladiator@lemy.lol to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 4 days agoProprietary vs Open Source Backdoorslemy.lolimagemessage-square96fedilinkarrow-up11.43Karrow-down110cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.42Karrow-down1imageProprietary vs Open Source Backdoorslemy.lolicegladiator@lemy.lol to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 4 days agomessage-square96fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squaretfm@europe.publinkfedilinkarrow-up8·3 days ago Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats “Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
minus-squareBudgetBandit@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·3 days agoAs a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
minus-squaretfm@europe.publinkfedilinkarrow-up5·3 days agoNo it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
minus-squarebrendansimms@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 days agoThere was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.
“Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
No it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.