[gruez]

> Yes, 'legal person', as opposed to real or physical person, i.e. a fictive person.

>In the US, can other fictive persons sue for defamation too?

The case law is pretty clear that yes, corporations can sue for defamation. As I mentioned before, you can find plenty of appellate-level cases where corporations have sued others for defamation. The fact that nobody has seriously tried to have such cases quashed on account of "corporations are fictive persons" or whatever suggests that it's not a serious legal argument worth considering. Arguing over this makes as much sense as arguing whether driving a car counts as "traveling" and whether that's protected by the constitution or not[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement#Tra...

[cess11]

You forgot to answer my question.

If you think it's fine and dandy that fictions are treated as if they're real in courts, that's just like your opinion, man.

Where I live, fictions aren't treated that way. The closest thing we have is immaterial rights, copyright and the like, 'protecting the fruits of spiritual labour'.

[gruez]

>If you think it's fine and dandy that fictions are treated as if they're real in courts, that's just like your opinion, man.

1. it's not just "like [my] opinion, man", it's how the legal system works in the US and most common law jurisdictions. You thinking otherwise makes as much sense as the people who think they don't need driver's licenses because they're not "driving", they're "traveling".

2. It sounds like you reject the concept of corporate personhood entirely. That's fine and all, but it's weird to bring that up when talking about tangential topics (eg. whether you can be sued for providing false information). It's even more weird to bring it up in a manner that suggests you're describing how the legal system works, rather than your opinion on how it ought to act.

>Where I live, fictions aren't treated that way

And what jurisdiction is that?