News Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

[mheslep]

It has been brought up to some degree. The media is a different issue. They are theoretically providing a service (reporting the news). Theoretically if they were found to not be providing a service (not just reporting the news) but rather running a political campaign then they would be at the mercy of the same laws as any other corporation. Interpretations of freedom of the press are heavily slanted in favour of the press so it would probably be difficult to nail anyone on this.

That was Scalia's point - there is no difference under the 1st amendment - you, me, you and me, press. See footnote 6. The amendment doesn't say 'that provide a important service', or the 'institution' of the press. Whether or not the media provide some role, or what dispensation Congress might give this or that organization is irrelevant.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thanks for the link Russ. I had read the Courts Opinion, but not the partial dissent.

The question of corporate personage is not IMO a Constitutional question. I am still agnostic about the proposed amendment. I think there is a deeper question that should be resolved. I do agree with the Court that speech must not be artificially chilled by the government. But I completely disagree with the idea that legal persons are automatically entitled to the same rights and privileges as natural persons under the Constitution.

That question has not been resolved, and this case does not resolve it. The XXVIII Amendment as written, does not resolve it. I think I would prefer an Amendment that addresses the deeper question, not an over broad reaction to a single ruling.

The defined rights of corporations are different in different locales from country to country and state to state (province to province) despite hundreds of years of precedent in common law. Corporations receive rights only so far as the law that defines them in any given legal jurisdiction allows them such rights. Redefining a corporations rights can only be a violation of the 1st amendment if you cede defacto individual rights to a corporation but the law need not even recognize the existence of the corporation let alone any rights it supposedly has except that it has already agreed to do so by its own laws. And as I already noted the origin of the corporation was in the need to resolve issues of the equitable disposition of accounts and debt in the associated contract law. It has nothing what ever to do with individual rights. It was born of a financial issue, not a rights issue so I have no idea where this concept of it being a 'natural extension of individual rights' comes from.

The http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html" agrees with TSA.

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante , at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

Next, Stevens addresses the scope of the case.

The first reason is that the question was not properly brought before us. In declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional on the ground that corporations’ electoral expenditures may not be regulated any more stringently than those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis relinquished below, not included in the questions presented to us by the litigants, and argued here only in response to the Court’s invitation. This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court. 2 Our colleagues’ suggestion that “we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell ,” ante , at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that “we have asked ourselves” to reconsider those cases.

In the District Court, Citizens United initially raised a facial challenge to the constitutionality of §203. App. 23a–24a. In its motion for summary judgment, however, Citizens United expressly abandoned its facial challenge, 1:07–cv–2240–RCL–RWR, Docket Entry No. 52, pp. 1–2 (May 16, 2008), and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that claim, id. , Nos. 53 (May 22, 2008), 54 (May 23, 2008), App. 6a. The District Court therefore resolved the case on alternative grounds, 3 and in its jurisdictional statement to this Court, Citizens United properly advised us that it was raising only “an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of … BCRA §203.” Juris. Statement 5. The jurisdictional statement never so much as cited Austin , the key case the majority today overrules. And not one of the questions presented suggested that Citizens United was surreptitiously raising the facial challenge to §203 that it previously agreed to dismiss. In fact, not one of those questions raised an issue based on Citizens United’s corporate status. Juris. Statement (i). Moreover, even in its merits briefing, when Citizens United injected its request to overrule Austin , it never sought a declaration that §203 was facially unconstitutional as to all corporations and unions; instead it argued only that the statute could not be applied to it because it was “funded overwhelmingly by individuals.” Brief for Appellant 29; see also id., at 10, 12, 16, 28 (affirming “as applied” character of challenge to §203); Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–9 (Mar. 24, 2009) (counsel for Citizens United conceding that §203 could be applied to General Motors); id., at 55 (counsel for Citizens United stating that “we accept the Court’s decision in Wisconsin Right to Life ”).

It may be just my limited perception, but it seems there is a disproportionate amount of judicial activism on behalf of corporate rights.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think I would prefer an Amendment that addresses the deeper question, not an over broad reaction to a single ruling.

Suggestions?

 

[BobG]

As are a host of other laws - yet all must conform to the intent of the Constitution. Yes, but what you are missing here is that "the law" in this case is the Constitution itself and "the jurisdiction" is The United States. I know you're just replying to things in order, but read what I've posted from the decision - it is in there, clear as day: It is a simple matter of logic that in order for a single person's freedom of speech to be protected, you must also protect his right to team up with a second (or third or thirty-thousandth) person to pool their resources to excercise that right more loudly, collectively. Re-quoted from above:

He ignores that a corporation is not merely the 'association of individuals', that a corporation is legally an individual itself with limited rights, and that the issue does not regard individuals in association with one another but rather the corporate individual. This really seems to show that they were ignoring legal nuances in their decision more than anything. I have no idea where he comes to the conclusion that Stevens is wrong to place the burden on those wishing to claim the constitution protects rights for non-natural persons to show evidence of that protection. Again the odd idea that fictitious persons possesses defacto individual rights.

TSA is exactly right. Saying a corporation is an association of individuals ignores the entire purpose of corporations - to separate the individual stockholders from the liabilities that accompany owning a company. A corporation is not an association of individuals that all share the risk of being personally sued, personally held liable to honor contracts they agreed to, etc. The "corporation", the fictional legal person, assumes all of these risks. The stockholders are practically just creditors that loan a corporation money in return for a profit - with the difference being they do have a say in what contracts, what risks, the corporation can undertake.

That was Scalia's point - there is no difference under the 1st amendment - you, me, you and me, press. See footnote 6. The amendment doesn't say 'that provide a important service', or the 'institution' of the press. Whether or not the media provide some role, or what dispensation Congress might give this or that organization is irrelevant.

The press does not have "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech applies to individuals. The press is covered by "freedom of the press", which is a completely different statement that also happens to be in the First Amendment. Being covered in the same amendment doesn't make them the same thing, no more than "freedom of religion", yet another completely separate concept covered in the 1st Amendment, is the same thing as "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press".

In other words, the 1st Amendment guarantees three completely separate issues:

1) Freedom of speech
2) Freedom of the press
3) Freedom of religion

 

[mheslep]

Freedom of speech applies to individuals.

Says you BobG. SOTUS says it also applies collectively to groups of people acting in concert.

 

[BobG]

Says you BobG. SOTUS says it also applies collectively to groups of people acting in concert.

Perhaps. It's beside the point.

The point is that the press have special rights that are spelled out in the First Amendment regardless of whether it's owned by an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. Scalia's comments about the press were irrelevant at best.

You seemed concerned that no one had addressed why the press had "freedom of speech" while other corporations didn't. The press doesn't have "freedom of speech". It has "freedom of the press", which is spelled out specifically in the Amendment.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps. It's beside the point.

The point is that the press have special rights that are spelled out in the First Amendment regardless of whether it's owned by an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. ...

There is no special dispensation for partnerships and corporations regarding the press that do not equally apply to speech from others:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It's just not there.

 

[BobG]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

How is this part, "... or of the press;..." , to be interpreted?

 

[mheslep]

How is this part, "... or of the press;..." , to be interpreted?

I think it is straight forward - no abridgement by Congress of anyone, any company, or any group set up in any manner what so ever that allows that entity to act as an agent of 'the press'. I contend the same type of unrestricted description necessarily applies to speech, at least that's how I read the opinion.

 

[BobG]

I think it is straight forward - no abridgement by Congress of anyone, any company, or any group set up in any manner what so ever that allows that entity to act as an agent of 'the press'. I contend the same type of unrestricted description necessarily applies to speech, at least that's how I read the opinion.

In other words, any company or group has freedom of speech, making the "of the press" part irrelevant and unnecessary? Or was the "of the press" part put in the amendment for a reason, since the "freedom of speech" part wouldn't cover a newspaper publisher?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bill Moyer addressed this issue on his Journal, this week.

Here is one excerpt that addresses a rather salient point, in my not so humble opinion. Like Obama, Lessig is Constitutional scholar.

... LAWRENCE LESSIG: I'm not against corporations. I think corporations are great. All kinds of corporations. And of course I think corporations ought to have certain rights. But there's a "Bladerunner" moment to this, where all of a sudden the rights that they have are not the rights that we give them, but rights that they have, certain inalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence put it. They've magically been given.

Look, you agree, we agree, that corporations are associations of individuals. But the mere fact that I have a right to vote and you have a right to vote, and we associate with a corp-- and make a corporation, doesn't mean that the corporation should have a right to vote.

NICK GILLESPIE: That's right. And they don't.

LAWRENCE LESSIG: So- well, but the question is-

NICK GILLESPIE: That's not on the table, is it?

LAWRENCE LESSIG: But the question is why? Because if the mere fact that I'm an individual, and I have a right to speak. And you're an individual and you have a right to speak. Associating together means that entity has the right to speak. Why doesn't that extend to the full range of quote "rights" that you and I have because our creator endowed us with them. And we have these unalienable rights?

NICK GILLESPIE: You know, we understand that a corporation is a legal term. One of the things that is problematic is to say, and again, in the Citizens United case, we have a clear cut example of a corporate entity that was shot down, it was censored, it was repressed by the government, because it was making speech that was not tolerated by the government. That's a big problem. And it can only get worse if we start coming up with even more nuanced and intricate schemes to control electioneering communication...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/transcript5.html

Watch online
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/profile2.html

As always, a worthy discussion regardless of your point of view.

 

[Skyhunter]

Suggestions?

Clear up the ambiguity and confusion surrounding the status of corporations that has led to the usurpation of rights by corporate entities over the last 140 years.

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to go about it. But amending the Constitution is a bit drastic IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to go about it. But amending the Constitution is a bit drastic IMO.

According to the legal scholars that I've been following, there is no other way. The SC overturned a century's worth of law and is the final authority given the existing framework. The only other option would be to wait until there is another lefty on the court and reverse the decision, again.

 

[Skyhunter]

According to the legal scholars that I've been following, there is no other way. The SC overturned a century's worth of law and is the final authority given the existing framework. The only other option would be to wait until there is another lefty on the court and reverse the decision, again.

I would prefer to put the matter to rest once and for all. Probably not a better time than now. Corporations are not particularly popular ATM, and if we wait, they will be up to speed on gaming and controlling the system in order to get their way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would prefer to put the matter to rest once and for all. Probably not a better time than now. Corporations are not particularly popular ATM, and if we wait, they will be up to speed on gaming and controlling the system in order to get their way.

That is an interesting point. Due to the nature of the problem - excessive influence in elections by non-human "persons" - it is conceivable that we have a finite window of opportunity to reverse the damage before it's too late.

Hey, isn't a "person" defined to be a human? [Heh, I checked and it is the first definition.] ... not according to the SC. There is neoconservative logic for you.

 

[drankin]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual or an association of individuals (a corporation). Foreign or domestic, for that matter. It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual or an association of individuals (a corporation). Foreign or domestic, for that matter. It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

The government doesn't have a right to limit foreign influence in US elections? How do you justify that claim? Where does the Constitution protect the rights of Chinese manufacturers to determine the outcome of US elections? That IS the sort of implication in play here.

Why doesn't a corporation have the right to vote? Also, if a corporation is a person, I want to see one imprisoned for crimes. A corporation can stand trial, but are they subject to the same laws as everyone else. Obviously not!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does the corporation have a right to religious freedom. Can a corporation hold public office?

Could we see Halliburton on the ballot in the next Presidential election? [Oh wait, we already did in 2000 ]

A "Bladerunner moment" is right.

 

[drankin]

The government doesn't have a right to limit foreign influence in US elections? How do you justify that claim? Where does the Constitution protect the rights of Chinese manufacturers to determine the outcome of US elections? That IS the sort of implication in play here.

Why doesn't a corporation have the right to vote? Also, if a corporation is a person, I want to see one imprisoned for crimes. A corporation can stand trial, but are they subject to the same laws as everyone else. Obviously not!

Don't put words in my mouth. The government cannot limit the free speech of anyone. Corporations are made up of people. I don't care whether a corporation is a "person" or not. Why do we want the government to limit the speech of anything or anyone? I think this is the whole point. It's not the function of our government to limit speech regardless of where it comes from.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In times of crisis, a President can nationalize a corporation - thus revoking its so-called Constitutional rights. What is the equivalent legal action wrt to a person?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Don't put words in my mouth. The government cannot limit the free speech of anyone. Corporations are made up of people. I don't care whether a corporation is a "person" or not. Why do we want the government to limit the speech of anything or anyone? I think this is the whole point. It's not the function of our government to limit speech regardless of where it comes from.

The words coming out of your mouth are what lead to my statements. What you are arguing is ideology regardless of consequences. It was never intended that we be ideological robots. We have brains and we need to use them.

We cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. One is not free to incite a riot. Free speech IS limited by the government. This is true when free speech is a threat to the welfare of all people. In this case, democracy itself is in jeopardy. This abberation in the law represents perhaps the most dangerous and insidious threat of all because it undermines the foundation of our system of government - the democratic process.

To say a corporation is made up of people is not the same as saying a corporation is a person. Also, a corporation is not a representitive entity. They don't hold elections for the employees to determine the actions of the company. It is a hierarchical entity, not a democratic one. By your logic, the vote of a slave owner was representitive of the wishes of the slaves.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as everyone else, since it cannot be jailed, it becomes a defacto supercitizen that is subject to some but not all laws.

Recall that no one is above the law. How do we rectify that problem?

 

[drankin]

The words coming out of your mouth are what lead to my statements. What you are arguing is ideology regardless of consequences. It was never intended that we be ideological robots. We have brains and we need to use them.

We cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. One is not free to incite a riot. Free speech IS limited by the government. This is true when free speech is a threat to the welfare of all people. In this case, democracy itself is in jeopardy. This abberation in the law represents perhaps the most dangerous and insidious threat of all because it undermines the foundation of our system of government - the democratic process.

To say a corporation is made up of people is not the same as saying a corporation is a person. Also, a corporation is not a representitive entity. They don't hold elections for the employees to determine the actions of the company. It is a hierarchical entity, not a democratic one. By your logic, the vote of a slave owner was representitive of the wishes of the slaves.

I'm not talking about fires and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about the ability for anyone or any"thing" the ability to speak, via newspaper, internet, commercial, or any other media without government restriction. Particularly during elections! Period.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not talking about fires and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about the ability for anyone or any"thing" the ability to speak, via newspaper, internet, commercial, or any other media without government restriction. Particularly during elections! Period.

Does my car get freedom of speech? My computer? Apparently you have no problem with free speech for Mickey Mouse and Joe Camel. So where is the line drawn? I mean if we can allow nonexistant persons free speech then we should allow freedom of speech for animals too right? How about dolls? Some guy in Japan is trying to marry his sex doll. Should his 'wife' be allowed free speech and the right to vote if he were an American citizen?

Speech comes from people, not 'things', so there is no reason to allow such unlimited rights for 'things'. The full legal responsibility and liability for any speech made should be placed entirely on the shoulders of the actual human 'speakers' rather than allowing them this proxy with supposed rights of its own.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as everyone else, since it cannot be jailed, it becomes a defacto supercitizen that is subject to some but not all laws.

Don't be ridiculous. Corporations lack most of the rights of natural persons (voting, petition, etc.) and are subject to dissolution rather than imprisonment. But it's not really useful to view them as persons; the legal fiction exists for convenience only.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The full legal responsibility and liability for any speech made should be placed entirely on the shoulders of the actual human 'speakers' rather than allowing them this proxy with supposed rights of its own.

Let's say that a corporation yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- or more to the point, it makes absurd and damaging false claims that incite panic. I would want to be able to hold the corporation responsible for that act, not just the board of directors and the corporate scapegoats. Are you suggesting that the corporation be granted immunity in such cases?

 

[BobG]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual

True in general. There can be limits, though. Can't libel a person, can't lie to incite panic, etc.

... or an association of individuals (a corporation).

False. A coporation is not an association of individuals. The stockholders are not joining together to share a common situation. They're creating a legal entity to stand between them and the real world.

I could buy this argument for a political party, and maybe even a union; but not for a corporation. Corporations are a different type of organization.

They are more like a firewall than an association of individuals.

It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

True. Any communication (i.e. speech) has three components - the transmitter, the medium, and the receiver. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean the right to say anything you want. It also means the freedom to hear or read the things you want.

Focusing on the rights of the corporation is a red herring, even if hard to resist since it's an interesting subject. You also need to focus on the rights of the listeners and how denying free speech of a corporation, union, etc will affect the listeners' rights to access information.

In fact, it's the rights of the listeners that justify putting limits on what a speaker can say (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, libel, etc).

 

[mheslep]

In other words, any company or group has freedom of speech, making the "of the press" part irrelevant and unnecessary? Or was the "of the press" part put in the amendment for a reason, since the "freedom of speech" part wouldn't cover a newspaper publisher?

I'd say it is the actions or behavior of the press that makes it the press; those actions are different from the common speaker. Thus for instance the collection of information from a source for publication has more or less been protected from inquiry by the state. The average speaker has to give that information up if called to court (the dock).

 

[BobG]

Differences between a corporation and an association of individuals.

1) Married couple. They can contribute to a campaign via a single check with the contribution being evenly split between them (unless they've attached some documentation stating a different distribution). The contribution of each would count against the limits for an individual's contribution limits. In other words, they couldn't each send in a $2400 check for a candidate in an election and then send in a joint check for another $2400. Being a married couple doesn't increase the contribution limit for each individual.

Additionally, a married couple can't donate money in their kids' name. (Each kid may voluntarily donate money to a campaign out of their own money, but they aren't considered to share in the parents' joint assets, so can't donate from them.)

2) A company partnership. A check can be sent in the company name with the contribution being split among the partners in proportion to their ownership percentage - i.e. each partner's share of the profits, since only profits can be used for the donation (which only means a campaign contribution cannot be considered a business expense since there may be no way to know whether the company will have a net profit or loss when the contribution is made). Whatever is contributed counts against each individual's contribution limits. In other words, if a company with two equal partners donates $4800 to a campaign, then each partner has hit his limit on campaign contributions. They can't each donate another $2400 in their own name.

3) Corporations can't donate money to a campaign (at least until the recent SCOTUS decision). If they could, and were considered to be an association of individuals instead of a separate legal entity, then their contributions would have to be split up among shareholders (excluding foreign shareholders prohibited from donating to US elections) and those contributions would be counted against each individual shareholder's limits. In the case of a shareholder holding a large amount of stock in many corporations, you'd have a problem in that the corporations wouldn't know if their contributions caused him to exceed contribution limits, in which case, the contributions would have to be resplit among shareholders still having room under contribution limits, etc.

In other words, if you have individual contribution limits (which may have effectively been struck down by the SCOTUS decision), then corporate donations create an intractable problem. The individual can't control his own donations and the corporation can't know if its individual shareholders are exceeding contribution limits.

1) Married couples. They buy a house together, then divorce. Thanks to the housing crash, they're upside down on their mortgage. They agree the husband gets the house and will continue to make payments. The husband bails and flees the country. The wife now gets to make the payments. Both agreed with the bank to make payments. Their divorce agreement is between them, not with the bank. Both are personally liable for that loan until it's paid off.

2) Individual business owner. Takes out a loan to start a business with his business as collateral. His business fails, he sells off his equipment, but still owes money to the bank. He still has to pay that loan even though he no longer has the business. The loan was a personal agreement between him and the bank; not his business and the bank.

3) Business partners taking a loan. Both partners are cosignors and equally personally liable to pay off the loan, same as if they took individual personal loans for the business.

4) Corporations. A corporation takes out a loan, then goes out of business. The individual stockholders are out whatever money they invested, but outstanding debt is not split among individual stockholders. The debts belong to the corporation, not the stockholders. If a corporation were an association of individuals, each stockholder would be delegating authority to the corporation to act in their behalf and they would be personally liable for any outstanding obligations if the corporation went out of business.

It's nice to argue that corporations are an association of individuals when it comes to freedom of speech. You do so knowing that common law denying corporations are an association of individuals when it comes to liabilities is older than the country itself and knowing the SCOTUS has to respect stare decisis in this case or bring the US economy to a complete and crashing halt. In other words, you can safely argue that a corporation is an association of individuals when it comes to free speech because you know there is no danger at all of a corporation being considered an association of individuals in any other way.

Note: It's still illegal for corporations to donate money directly to a campaign. This is just to show the difference between corporations and "an association of individuals". However, the impact of the decision guts contribution limits since a corporation can broadcast the campaign commercials on its own instead of giving a candidate money to broadcast his own commercials. (Not that current law prevents that from happening with PACs and 527s.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Let's say that a corporation yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- or more to the point, it makes absurd and damaging false claims that incite panic. I would want to be able to hold the corporation responsible for that act, not just the board of directors and the corporate scapegoats. Are you suggesting that the corporation be granted immunity in such cases?

As it stands only the corporate 'person' and just maybe some scapegoat, or person who was not effectively able to shield their activities behind the corporation, will be held responsible. It is quite possible that no actual individual will be held legally responsible even though we know that it was obviously individuals who perpetrated the act and not a fictitious person.

In an 'association of individuals' all persons involved in the 'association' may be held responsible in some degree corresponding to their involvement and all persons will be investigated. Actual people would be held legally accountable for their actions.

I am uncertain why it is that you would prefer to hold a fictitious person liable for the crimes of real individuals.