Congressman Warns FTC: Leave Google Alone 303
concealment writes with this selection from Ars Technica: "A Democratic congressman who played a leading role in the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act earlier this year has taken up a new cause: shielding Google from antitrust scrutiny. In a strongly worded letter to Federal Trade Commission chairman Jon Leibowitz, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) praised Google's contribution to the nation's economy. He warned Leibowitz that if the FTC does choose to initiate an antitrust case against Google, Congress might react by curtailing its regulatory authority."
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know, but why always a congressman sticks his nose in something it starts smelling fishy.
Maybe because Congressmen rarely do anything when they don't have a direct vested interest [coloradodaily.com] in the corporation involved.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:3, Informative)
One of more ignorant things I've read lately. Do yourself a favor, and read up on the history of the corporation as individual. One interesting thing you'll find out (among many others) is that although it is frequently referred to as if it is enshrined in law, it is not. It's a fiction passed off originally by the railroads in an attempt to fend off anti-trust regulation.
I'm really mystified by this notion that corporations would have free reign if they weren't legally people (which they aren't). You don't really believe Congress is powerless to pass laws which regulate entities other than individuals, do you?
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:2, Informative)
You do realize this isn't the first investigation Google has gone through? I seriously doubt this one will somehow damage their reputation unless they prove to be found guilty.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:2, Informative)
Because corporations aren't people, at least not in the same sense that human beings are people. Spend an hour reading up on the subject and you'll find that the legal opinions and the underlying laws that established corporate personhood are clear on the distinction between corporate personhood and natural persons (aka human beings). Corporate personhood is a legal fiction created to hold the concept of corporations' legal right to do things like own property and to sue or be sued. These rights are a subset of the rights of a natural person and so someone invented the term "corporate personhood" to describe the concept. But the law and legal opinions are clear that corporations do not have the full rights of a natural person. As an example corporations don't have the right to vote.
In regard to your question about owning "people". It is illegal for corporations or natural persons to own a natural person. But it is not illegal for a corporation or natural person to own a corporation since corporations are not natural persons.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:5, Informative)
A corporation does not shield anyone from breaking the law. Anyone who breaks the laws will be subject to prosecution under the law. If someone is directing others to break the law, and that can be shown as fact, they are more liable because more ranges of charges and liability would apply (racketeering, operating criminal enterprises and so on). The corporation denotation stops people who took no active role in the crime or managing of the company they own (or own stock in) from being held personally liable. The CEO and board have a fiduciary duty to operate the company within the laws and rules and regulations for those shareholders.
The problem with your confusion is that some laws carry only a fine for a penalty and corporations generally are the ones who pay that penalty. Another problem is that often criminal prosecution requires more evidence that what can be gained when asking tight lipped people questions. Think about how many times a case goes unprosecuted because witnesses are more scared of the perpetrators then the law and refuse to offer eye witness accounts of insights into why something happened. What can be more scarier then potentially being the one who could cause you and everyone else around you to lose your jobs and retirement. People will not volunteer to do that normally unless they have more to lose themselves.