It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish.
It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations.
But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.
No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization.
The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.
The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision.
Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.
People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions.
By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.
I don't know what people you're talking about, but as I recall, the legal arguments against the Muslim ban hinged on Americans harmed by the ban --- families who couldn't see their Muslim family members, schools that couldn't serve their Muslim foreign students.
It seems pretty straightforward to observe that Chinese residents --- not to mention British residents --- do not in fact enjoy the First Amendment rights of Americans. In fact, neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK. If they did, British libel law would be different, would it not?
It's true that constitutional rights don't generally apply to citizens of other countries, unless they are in the US.
> neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK
But American citizens in other countries still enjoy the same constitutional protections--protections which only apply to actions taken by the US government.
I see what you're getting at, but there are many things that the US government would love to prevent you from saying that the Chinese or UK government couldn't care less about.
For instance, if you're a US citizen and a resident of the UK or China, you might want to call the President of the US a big baby on twitter. The UK or Chinese government probably wouldn't have a problem with that, but the first amendment protections you enjoy, even while abroad, is preventing the President from calling up twitter and trying to have you banned.
Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
Yes, serious people are really making that argument.
> It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to.
I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
> The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government
> The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship
> The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability
> Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad
Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?
> > People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.
> Which people?
Legal people, because it is inline with other comprehensions of how "persons" are afforded rights. Immigration restrictions are not invalid because the right to immigrate (or even technically resettle) are not covered by the constitution. So a presidential order (or governor's order) could be levied to restrict the emigration of people from one region to another - it would possibly run afoul of the terribly broad 9th amendment (basically, you have the right to do anything you should be able to do) but isn't explicitly banned... interesting this would be wholly illegal in Canada which establishes "Freedom of mobility"[1] explicitly.
Laws are fun!
Politicians often make divisive hyperbolic statements with no basis in fact!
> I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.
I'm not responsible for what you think, but I'll note that in general it's a good idea to look at what people are saying before deciding what you think they're saying.
> By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid?
No; for example, if you apply for a visa and check the box saying "I am planning to engage in a terrorist attack against the United States", I'm pretty sure this argument would have nothing to say about denying your visa. It does invalidate plenty of historical restrictions.