November 20, 2008 • 16 mins
Corporate personhood is an ancient legal custom tracing back to Roman law, whereby a corporation is legally considered a person.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from House Stuff Works
dot com. Hi, and welcome to the podcast. Hi everybody, Chuck,
how are you doing good? That's Chuck by the way,
and I'm Josh. We're going to be your guys through
the next fifteen minutes of total mind expansion. Tell you
some stuff you should know. Yeah, and this one is
(00:22):
actually pretty cool, uh, the one we're doing today. I
guess they're all pretty cool. We we like to make
them cool. But this one is something that probably a
lot of your friends won't know about, so you can
wow them at the next cocktail party, the next kid's
birthday party, any kind of party. That's very succinct. Chuck, Um, Chuck.
(00:42):
Let's talk about legal fiction. Okay, okay, you want me
to talk about You're not talking about John Grisham. No, no,
who No, sorry, that was Creon that died. I think
John Grisham is alive and well, yes, and he's an
attorney and a novelist, right, yeah, and he's pretty good too.
But we're not talking about Christam's work. Um, we're talking
(01:03):
about it's actually a it's a it's a legal term
that's used basically to describe, uh, anytime a court says
something is true that's not true, just for the sake
of moving things along, keeping things tightier. It's kind of
like if you and I were having a conversation, Chuck,
and I said, you know, um my uh my right
(01:25):
jab is a million times better than yours, and we
were kind of debating that rather than stopping and saying
that that's hyperbole. I don't agree with that. You're just
gonna kind of nod and we're gonna stick to the
meat of it, right, Or we should punch each other
and we can find out that. It's one way to
find out. Yeah, although as everyone knows, we're not big fighters. No,
(01:45):
I would miss your face, that's how bad I am.
It would be clumsy. Uh. Well, let me give you
an example of legal fiction specifically, Um, there's uh, there's
this thing called a renunciation of a legacy. If you
heard of this, No, So basically, let's say I find
out that I'm in your will and I'm just like
that Chuck, he's far too generous. I can't accept this.
(02:07):
You know, maybe if I if I take myself out
of his will, uh, he will um go ahead and
give that money to uh the poor or orphans or
something like that. Okay, Um, the thing is is you're
sticking to your guns. I'm in your will. You'll love me,
You'll want to leave me some money. There's something I
can do. I can renounce that legacy. I go to
(02:30):
the court and the court says, Okay, you're dead. You
have the chuck has outlived you. As far as this
will is concerned, I've predeceased you, which means that any
claim I could have is no one void since I'm
no longer alive. You see what I'm saying. That's legal fiction.
They as far as that will concerned, I'm dead, You're
(02:52):
still alive. Interesting, isn't that interesting? Is there's another piece
of legal fiction called corporate person That's right, this is
the meat of what we're talking about. Indeed, Um, corporate
personhood is exactly what it sounds like. Uh. There is
a legal custom, not just in the US, but it
dates back to the Romans. I believe the ancient Romans,
(03:13):
not today's Romans. The original Romans um where a corporation
which is really just a pool of investors money. That's
that's that's taken together and used to conduct business. Is
it's considered an actual artificial person under the law. Yeah,
that that this is kind of blew me away me too,
(03:36):
to be honest. Yeah, there's this guy named Tom Hartman,
um who I heard years ago on MPR talking about this,
and he wrote this great book, um, and it's worth
a read. I can't remember what it's called right now.
I've got it written down on one of my notes
that I can't find. But um, he turned me onto this.
He has this radio show out west and he is
very much against corporate personhood and a lot of people are.
(03:59):
Here's why corporations if you treat them as a person. Well,
our punitive legal system, chuck. That keeps us from you know,
stabbing old ladies for their purses or you know, just
walking into grocery stores and opening up cash registers. There's
a little thing called prison. Sure, there's also a thing
called the gas chamber, the electric chair, the hangman's gallows.
(04:23):
There is punishment out there for our actions and these
these this punishment is designed to keep us from crossing
that line from upstanding citizen to you know, anarchistic criminal. Um.
And and so we don't do things in large part
because there's prison. There's consequences if not, I would be
(04:43):
hitting old ladies over the head every day. Who wouldn't. Exactly,
it's prison keeps our society intact. I'm just as that. So, Um,
with the corporation, you have to kind of look at it.
Since it's an artificial person, you have to look at
it as a superhuman person too. It doesn't need food,
doesn't need water. You can't put it in prison. It
(05:04):
doesn't feel pain, right, Um, it has no life space.
It's it's limitless. As long as there's those shares are
out there and it's making a profit, a corporation can
live indefinitely. Um. So this is why it's kind of
a sticky discussion. This is why people like Tom Hartman
are very much against corporate personhood and the whole thing. Actually, um,
(05:27):
this has been going on for a while. Jefferson, Thomas
Jefferson was very much an advocate of putting UH life
lifespan limits restrictions, including UH lifespan limits on corporations in
the constitution. And he failed. Yeah, he failed on each count. Yeah.
So actually we almost had a constitutional provision that said
(05:50):
corporations can only last this long. And there's this limitation
because Jefferson in his usual capacity saw far into the
future and all the problems that this random aspect of
you know, American society or global society will have. He
was a pretty insightful dude, and he was absolutely right.
We've run into some serious problems with the concept of
(06:12):
corporate personhood, right, and I know the Fourteenth Amendment is
kind of where it all comes together. Yeah. Actually, the
irony of the whole thing is that rather than being
restricted by the Constitution, corporations were actually detected by the
Constitution as artificial people under the Fourteenth Amendment, which I
know you pointed out. The last word of the Fourteenth
(06:33):
Amendment equal rights protection under the law to every person.
Every person. That is a very significant word, because of
course corporations are artificial persons, right right. So, um in
very rapid succession that was I think eighteen sixty eight
when that was ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Very quickly, a
(06:54):
um A court case came to the Supreme Court for
decision that had to do with applying that to corporations.
Santa Clara County, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and if you
think about it, basically applying a constitutional amendment that protected
freed slaves, newly freed slaves, and trying to get it
(07:17):
to apply to corporations. And I didn't have the pinnacle
of tastelessness. Ye. So yeah, Well, nineteenth century Robert Barons
weren't above anything. And one of the things they did
was in that case, the Union Pacific case. Um, they
they finally applied the the Supreme Court, I can't remember
who was at the head at the time basically said
you know what, we realized what this case is saying.
(07:39):
And ultimately what the case did was it upheld the
longstanding custom that it was up to a state to
tax and to charter corporations. And that's still going on today,
like as UH President elect Obama excruciatingly pointed out. And
I think the second debate, Delaware is a big haven
(08:00):
for credit card companies, which is where the vice president
elect hails from, because of the tax benefits. Correct. Yeah,
it's set up in a certain way so that credit
card companies benefit the most from that state. The same
Florida as a tax haven for I think real estate
businesses or something like that. I think Florida doesn't have
an income tax, is that right? Don't They don't have
(08:21):
an income tax. Yeah. No, they just operate on borrowed time. Right.
I'm moving to Florida. Yeah, same here, buddy. UM. So,
in this case, Santa Clara versus Southern Pacific Union Pacific,
one of the two Southern Southern Pacific thank you. Um
that was established. But here's where everything just gets totally hinky.
I know, and I couldn't believe this. Yeah, the the
(08:44):
court reporter for the Supreme Court wrote a little head
note which is exactly what sounds like. It's a note
at the head of the briefs of the ruling, and
it's said, court decides that under the fourteenth Amendment, UH,
corporations are afforded detection equal protection under the law. And
that was it, right. But where it gets hanky, as
(09:05):
you say, is that the Chief Justice did not say this. No,
he actually wrote a personal note that was uncovered later
on that said that the Court specifically did not rule
on that. I knew that that's what the case came
down to, written down, prepared to do that, right, just
written down by the court the court reporter who turned
out to be I believe an ex president, which I
(09:32):
this is that a step back or not? You know,
there's a long tradition of high finance, of huge industry
putting their own people into public government. And as somebody
said recently, you know, um Paulson's from Goldman Sacks, and
somebody said recently, there is a revolving door between private
(09:54):
and public service, very linked. And I apparently this was
been going on for a very long time. Well it
worked in this case. It did because since it was
a head note, it wasn't law, but it did set
precedent right, And I don't understand how that works, to
be honest. Well, somebody can say, look, it's written right
here and and you can use it as part of
(10:14):
your argument, and they did. I think two years later
there was another case, I think another railroad case or something.
They pointed to it, and the Supreme Court finally ruled
and said, yes, corporations have equal protection under the laws,
artificial person, because this schmuck wrote it down, because he
wrote it down at the head note of a ruling
that had nothing to do with Yeah, I had no
(10:34):
idea that the court reporter was such a position of power.
Well apparently no one else did either, But yeah, so
that's how we've gotten to the point where corporations have
the same protection as you, chuck. The cops can't just
come into your house and start looking around and the
hopes that they find something incriminating because you're a person
and you're protected under i think the Fourth Amendment from
(10:55):
unreasonable searchers. So to our corporations, yeah, um, there was
a case in the seventies where ocean inspectors, you know,
they could just walk into a corporate headquarters business something
like that for inspection and yeah, looking for violations, that
kind of thing. Somebody sued that, you know, the corporations
enjoy the same protection under the law in the Fourth
(11:17):
Amendment and one. So now if you want to find violations,
you have to make an appointment with the you know,
a manager the store. Um, that one of the corporate officers, right,
And I know, uh, I don't think this applies for
food restaurant inspections because I used to work in restaurants
and remember we were always caught very much off guard
(11:39):
when the health inspector showed up. Yeah yeah, um, I
don't know why that would be any different, but yeah,
well maybe just we'll take a restaurant to file a
suit for it to happen. Maybe so maybe so, um,
there's also a really sterling example. I love Nike. Nike
um as we all know, as is common knowledge now, uh,
(12:02):
Nike was running some really abuse of corporate practices overseas
and it's one word for him. Definitely in the nineties,
this is not widely known. I mean a certain subversive
section of the of society understood this right. People that
did their homework right. Most people didn't really walk around going, oh,
(12:23):
Nike run sweatshops over and you know, I think Malaysia
UM one M I T student actually managed to break
it into the public view. And uh, I can't remember.
Do you remember when this was when Nike would allow
you to have anything you want stitched on their shoes.
I don't remember that, but it was in two thousand one.
(12:44):
You could get something stitched, a personal message or whatever
your name something yeah, yeah, And this guy from M
I T wanted the word sweatshop embroidered on his Nikes yeah,
and they said no. So he forwarded the email around
and in a very short order got picked up by
some of the major news services and people started investigating
(13:05):
Nike's practices more and more. Well, Nike, it started this
huge pr blitz where they said no, that's absolutely not true.
This is this is completely unfounded. We treat all of
our employees very well. I mean, just lie after lie
after lie. Finally, somebody went to Malaysia some of these countries,
(13:28):
these developing countries where Nike was running these sweatshops and
filmed the practices. Somebody made a pretty decent documentary out
of I can't remember what it was called, but apparently
the living conditions were important. Factory workers were um, living
in shannytown's next to the factory, and the roofs were
made of discarded souls, like the stuff they used to
for the souls of the Nike. Um. You know, it's
(13:50):
just really bad business practices. So finally Nike is forced
to say, okay, fine, you know that's right. Was brought
by man in California. And what was Nike's defense. Uh,
Nike's defense was, and this is just unbelievable, was that
because they are granted the same righteous people, they are
allowed to lie under the uh fourth Amendment first freedom
(14:16):
of speech. Yeah, so the sadvertising, you can't be sued
for it because you're allowed to lie because your corporation
and an artificial person didn't didn't really hold water though
it didn't and uh, but no one ever ruled on it. Well,
it's because they settled. Nike settle smartly. Yeah, and so
they I think showed out like fifteen million or something
like that. It's actually just one point five unless you're
(14:38):
decimal point was off. It's terrible. Um, well it did
go to some sort of labor protection group. One point
five million. You know, that's not a lot. It's not
although that will buy you a couple of houses in Malaysia,
I imagine. Um, But the the the fact is that
still the jury is still out whether or not a
corporation can lie the fact that. But that's a how
(15:00):
this whole thing has been established over time, it's been
kind of um whittled away and added to and taken
from the the The I guess happy ending to this
story is Nike was finally put in such a bad
light that they wrote a lengthy report on the working
conditions of their factories, all of them, and basically, you know,
(15:24):
self reported that they were mistreating their workers overseas and
clean up their acts. So yeah, freedom, freedom of speech
goes both ways. And in our ligitious society, it's good
to have good lawyers if corporations of the same rights
as you. It's a shame it took that kind of
action though, for Nike to to realize that, you know,
the greed that was going on. That's just my opinion.
(15:47):
I agree with you. I don't know who wouldn't. Well,
thanks for listening. Go tell everybody that all corporations have
the same constitutional protections of you. Just do it. If
they exactly and if they don't now they soon will. Well.
You can read all about corporations having the same rights
as you by just typing in a few magic keywords
in our search bar at how stuff works dot com.
(16:10):
For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit
how stuff works dot com. Let us know what you think.
Send an email to podcast at how stuff works dot com.
Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from House Stuff Works
dot com. Hi, and welcome to the podcast. Hi everybody, Chuck,
how are you doing good? That's Chuck by the way,
and I'm Josh. We're going to be your guys through
the next fifteen minutes of total mind expansion. Tell you
some stuff you should know. Yeah, and this one is
(00:22):
actually pretty cool, uh, the one we're doing today. I
guess they're all pretty cool. We we like to make
them cool. But this one is something that probably a
lot of your friends won't know about, so you can
wow them at the next cocktail party, the next kid's
birthday party, any kind of party. That's very succinct. Chuck, Um, Chuck.
(00:42):
Let's talk about legal fiction. Okay, okay, you want me
to talk about You're not talking about John Grisham. No, no,
who No, sorry, that was Creon that died. I think
John Grisham is alive and well, yes, and he's an
attorney and a novelist, right, yeah, and he's pretty good too.
But we're not talking about Christam's work. Um, we're talking
(01:03):
about it's actually a it's a it's a legal term
that's used basically to describe, uh, anytime a court says
something is true that's not true, just for the sake
of moving things along, keeping things tightier. It's kind of
like if you and I were having a conversation, Chuck,
and I said, you know, um my uh my right
(01:25):
jab is a million times better than yours, and we
were kind of debating that rather than stopping and saying
that that's hyperbole. I don't agree with that. You're just
gonna kind of nod and we're gonna stick to the
meat of it, right, Or we should punch each other
and we can find out that. It's one way to
find out. Yeah, although as everyone knows, we're not big fighters. No,
(01:45):
I would miss your face, that's how bad I am.
It would be clumsy. Uh. Well, let me give you
an example of legal fiction specifically, Um, there's uh, there's
this thing called a renunciation of a legacy. If you
heard of this, No, So basically, let's say I find
out that I'm in your will and I'm just like
that Chuck, he's far too generous. I can't accept this.
(02:07):
You know, maybe if I if I take myself out
of his will, uh, he will um go ahead and
give that money to uh the poor or orphans or
something like that. Okay, Um, the thing is is you're
sticking to your guns. I'm in your will. You'll love me,
You'll want to leave me some money. There's something I
can do. I can renounce that legacy. I go to
(02:30):
the court and the court says, Okay, you're dead. You
have the chuck has outlived you. As far as this
will is concerned, I've predeceased you, which means that any
claim I could have is no one void since I'm
no longer alive. You see what I'm saying. That's legal fiction.
They as far as that will concerned, I'm dead, You're
(02:52):
still alive. Interesting, isn't that interesting? Is there's another piece
of legal fiction called corporate person That's right, this is
the meat of what we're talking about. Indeed, Um, corporate
personhood is exactly what it sounds like. Uh. There is
a legal custom, not just in the US, but it
dates back to the Romans. I believe the ancient Romans,
(03:13):
not today's Romans. The original Romans um where a corporation
which is really just a pool of investors money. That's
that's that's taken together and used to conduct business. Is
it's considered an actual artificial person under the law. Yeah,
that that this is kind of blew me away me too,
(03:36):
to be honest. Yeah, there's this guy named Tom Hartman,
um who I heard years ago on MPR talking about this,
and he wrote this great book, um, and it's worth
a read. I can't remember what it's called right now.
I've got it written down on one of my notes
that I can't find. But um, he turned me onto this.
He has this radio show out west and he is
very much against corporate personhood and a lot of people are.
(03:59):
Here's why corporations if you treat them as a person. Well,
our punitive legal system, chuck. That keeps us from you know,
stabbing old ladies for their purses or you know, just
walking into grocery stores and opening up cash registers. There's
a little thing called prison. Sure, there's also a thing
called the gas chamber, the electric chair, the hangman's gallows.
(04:23):
There is punishment out there for our actions and these
these this punishment is designed to keep us from crossing
that line from upstanding citizen to you know, anarchistic criminal. Um.
And and so we don't do things in large part
because there's prison. There's consequences if not, I would be
(04:43):
hitting old ladies over the head every day. Who wouldn't. Exactly,
it's prison keeps our society intact. I'm just as that. So, Um,
with the corporation, you have to kind of look at it.
Since it's an artificial person, you have to look at
it as a superhuman person too. It doesn't need food,
doesn't need water. You can't put it in prison. It
(05:04):
doesn't feel pain, right, Um, it has no life space.
It's it's limitless. As long as there's those shares are
out there and it's making a profit, a corporation can
live indefinitely. Um. So this is why it's kind of
a sticky discussion. This is why people like Tom Hartman
are very much against corporate personhood and the whole thing. Actually, um,
(05:27):
this has been going on for a while. Jefferson, Thomas
Jefferson was very much an advocate of putting UH life
lifespan limits restrictions, including UH lifespan limits on corporations in
the constitution. And he failed. Yeah, he failed on each count. Yeah.
So actually we almost had a constitutional provision that said
(05:50):
corporations can only last this long. And there's this limitation
because Jefferson in his usual capacity saw far into the
future and all the problems that this random aspect of
you know, American society or global society will have. He
was a pretty insightful dude, and he was absolutely right.
We've run into some serious problems with the concept of
(06:12):
corporate personhood, right, and I know the Fourteenth Amendment is
kind of where it all comes together. Yeah. Actually, the
irony of the whole thing is that rather than being
restricted by the Constitution, corporations were actually detected by the
Constitution as artificial people under the Fourteenth Amendment, which I
know you pointed out. The last word of the Fourteenth
(06:33):
Amendment equal rights protection under the law to every person.
Every person. That is a very significant word, because of
course corporations are artificial persons, right right. So, um in
very rapid succession that was I think eighteen sixty eight
when that was ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Very quickly, a
(06:54):
um A court case came to the Supreme Court for
decision that had to do with applying that to corporations.
Santa Clara County, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and if you
think about it, basically applying a constitutional amendment that protected
freed slaves, newly freed slaves, and trying to get it
(07:17):
to apply to corporations. And I didn't have the pinnacle
of tastelessness. Ye. So yeah, Well, nineteenth century Robert Barons
weren't above anything. And one of the things they did
was in that case, the Union Pacific case. Um, they
they finally applied the the Supreme Court, I can't remember
who was at the head at the time basically said
you know what, we realized what this case is saying.
(07:39):
And ultimately what the case did was it upheld the
longstanding custom that it was up to a state to
tax and to charter corporations. And that's still going on today,
like as UH President elect Obama excruciatingly pointed out. And
I think the second debate, Delaware is a big haven
(08:00):
for credit card companies, which is where the vice president
elect hails from, because of the tax benefits. Correct. Yeah,
it's set up in a certain way so that credit
card companies benefit the most from that state. The same
Florida as a tax haven for I think real estate
businesses or something like that. I think Florida doesn't have
an income tax, is that right? Don't They don't have
(08:21):
an income tax. Yeah. No, they just operate on borrowed time. Right.
I'm moving to Florida. Yeah, same here, buddy. UM. So,
in this case, Santa Clara versus Southern Pacific Union Pacific,
one of the two Southern Southern Pacific thank you. Um
that was established. But here's where everything just gets totally hinky.
I know, and I couldn't believe this. Yeah, the the
(08:44):
court reporter for the Supreme Court wrote a little head
note which is exactly what sounds like. It's a note
at the head of the briefs of the ruling, and
it's said, court decides that under the fourteenth Amendment, UH,
corporations are afforded detection equal protection under the law. And
that was it, right. But where it gets hanky, as
(09:05):
you say, is that the Chief Justice did not say this. No,
he actually wrote a personal note that was uncovered later
on that said that the Court specifically did not rule
on that. I knew that that's what the case came
down to, written down, prepared to do that, right, just
written down by the court the court reporter who turned
out to be I believe an ex president, which I
(09:32):
this is that a step back or not? You know,
there's a long tradition of high finance, of huge industry
putting their own people into public government. And as somebody
said recently, you know, um Paulson's from Goldman Sacks, and
somebody said recently, there is a revolving door between private
(09:54):
and public service, very linked. And I apparently this was
been going on for a very long time. Well it
worked in this case. It did because since it was
a head note, it wasn't law, but it did set
precedent right, And I don't understand how that works, to
be honest. Well, somebody can say, look, it's written right
here and and you can use it as part of
(10:14):
your argument, and they did. I think two years later
there was another case, I think another railroad case or something.
They pointed to it, and the Supreme Court finally ruled
and said, yes, corporations have equal protection under the laws,
artificial person, because this schmuck wrote it down, because he
wrote it down at the head note of a ruling
that had nothing to do with Yeah, I had no
(10:34):
idea that the court reporter was such a position of power.
Well apparently no one else did either, But yeah, so
that's how we've gotten to the point where corporations have
the same protection as you, chuck. The cops can't just
come into your house and start looking around and the
hopes that they find something incriminating because you're a person
and you're protected under i think the Fourth Amendment from
(10:55):
unreasonable searchers. So to our corporations, yeah, um, there was
a case in the seventies where ocean inspectors, you know,
they could just walk into a corporate headquarters business something
like that for inspection and yeah, looking for violations, that
kind of thing. Somebody sued that, you know, the corporations
enjoy the same protection under the law in the Fourth
(11:17):
Amendment and one. So now if you want to find violations,
you have to make an appointment with the you know,
a manager the store. Um, that one of the corporate officers, right,
And I know, uh, I don't think this applies for
food restaurant inspections because I used to work in restaurants
and remember we were always caught very much off guard
(11:39):
when the health inspector showed up. Yeah yeah, um, I
don't know why that would be any different, but yeah,
well maybe just we'll take a restaurant to file a
suit for it to happen. Maybe so maybe so, um,
there's also a really sterling example. I love Nike. Nike
um as we all know, as is common knowledge now, uh,
(12:02):
Nike was running some really abuse of corporate practices overseas
and it's one word for him. Definitely in the nineties,
this is not widely known. I mean a certain subversive
section of the of society understood this right. People that
did their homework right. Most people didn't really walk around going, oh,
(12:23):
Nike run sweatshops over and you know, I think Malaysia
UM one M I T student actually managed to break
it into the public view. And uh, I can't remember.
Do you remember when this was when Nike would allow
you to have anything you want stitched on their shoes.
I don't remember that, but it was in two thousand one.
(12:44):
You could get something stitched, a personal message or whatever
your name something yeah, yeah, And this guy from M
I T wanted the word sweatshop embroidered on his Nikes yeah,
and they said no. So he forwarded the email around
and in a very short order got picked up by
some of the major news services and people started investigating
(13:05):
Nike's practices more and more. Well, Nike, it started this
huge pr blitz where they said no, that's absolutely not true.
This is this is completely unfounded. We treat all of
our employees very well. I mean, just lie after lie
after lie. Finally, somebody went to Malaysia some of these countries,
(13:28):
these developing countries where Nike was running these sweatshops and
filmed the practices. Somebody made a pretty decent documentary out
of I can't remember what it was called, but apparently
the living conditions were important. Factory workers were um, living
in shannytown's next to the factory, and the roofs were
made of discarded souls, like the stuff they used to
for the souls of the Nike. Um. You know, it's
(13:50):
just really bad business practices. So finally Nike is forced
to say, okay, fine, you know that's right. Was brought
by man in California. And what was Nike's defense. Uh,
Nike's defense was, and this is just unbelievable, was that
because they are granted the same righteous people, they are
allowed to lie under the uh fourth Amendment first freedom
(14:16):
of speech. Yeah, so the sadvertising, you can't be sued
for it because you're allowed to lie because your corporation
and an artificial person didn't didn't really hold water though
it didn't and uh, but no one ever ruled on it. Well,
it's because they settled. Nike settle smartly. Yeah, and so
they I think showed out like fifteen million or something
like that. It's actually just one point five unless you're
(14:38):
decimal point was off. It's terrible. Um, well it did
go to some sort of labor protection group. One point
five million. You know, that's not a lot. It's not
although that will buy you a couple of houses in Malaysia,
I imagine. Um, But the the the fact is that
still the jury is still out whether or not a
corporation can lie the fact that. But that's a how
(15:00):
this whole thing has been established over time, it's been
kind of um whittled away and added to and taken
from the the The I guess happy ending to this
story is Nike was finally put in such a bad
light that they wrote a lengthy report on the working
conditions of their factories, all of them, and basically, you know,
(15:24):
self reported that they were mistreating their workers overseas and
clean up their acts. So yeah, freedom, freedom of speech
goes both ways. And in our ligitious society, it's good
to have good lawyers if corporations of the same rights
as you. It's a shame it took that kind of
action though, for Nike to to realize that, you know,
the greed that was going on. That's just my opinion.
(15:47):
I agree with you. I don't know who wouldn't. Well,
thanks for listening. Go tell everybody that all corporations have
the same constitutional protections of you. Just do it. If
they exactly and if they don't now they soon will. Well.
You can read all about corporations having the same rights
as you by just typing in a few magic keywords
in our search bar at how stuff works dot com.
(16:10):
For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit
how stuff works dot com. Let us know what you think.
Send an email to podcast at how stuff works dot com.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com