SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Food Politics reports that Rick Friday, a long time cartoonist for Farm News, was dismissed for offending "a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in a cartoon." The political cartoon is critical of Big Ag CEOs, which earned more than 2,000 Iowa farmers combined.
In a Facebook post the cartoonist, Rick Friday, explained:
I am no longer the Editorial Cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon which was published yesterday. Apparently a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in the cartoon was insulted and cancelled their advertisement with the paper, thus, resulting in the reprimand of my editor and cancellation of It's Friday cartoons after 21 years of service and over 1090 published cartoons to over 24,000 households per week in 33 counties of Iowa.
I did my research and only submitted the facts in my cartoon.
That's okay, hopefully my children and my grandchildren will see that this last cartoon published by Farm News out of Fort Dodge, Iowa, will shine light on how fragile our rights to free speech and free press really are in the country.
The Des Moines Register explains further:
The CEOs at the ag giants earned about $52.9 million last year, based on Morningstar data. Monsanto and DuPont, the parent of Johnston-based Pioneer, are large seed and chemical companies, and Deere is a large farm equipment manufacturer.
Profits for the three companies, all with large operations across Iowa, also have declined as farm income has been squeezed. After peaking in 2013, U.S. farm income this year is projected to fall to $183 billion, its lowest level since 2002.
It seems like in the U.S. you free to say what you like, but if you offend the wrong people you're free to lose your job despite the protections you are provided and encouraged to use.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @05:41AM
Good response--I'm having to think a bit to defend my comment-- :)
I would argue that a government that is unable to set internal rules, be they called "rules," "laws," "regulations" or "ordinances," cannot be a government. The ability to enforce or at least the perception of the ability to enforce those rules, is also fundamental (and, incidentally, the consent of the governed to either the imposition of the rules or their enforcement is not required).
In theory, true; in practice:
A. The corporations have often had a hand in drafting those laws, or, in some cases, have coerced governments into drafting laws favorable to their desired practice.
B. Reporting depends on people being independent, angry or desperate enough to be willing to whistle-blow and a media that is independent from the corporations they are reporting on and from their allies.
C. Enforcement depends on governments not colluding with the corporations or on governments not looking the other way when they break the law.
A. If you define "force" as "extreme or lethal force," you are right--companies are different from governments in that respect; however, if you, as an employee--and your family--are dependent on the income from a job and an employer's goodwill in obtaining other employment, economic coercion can be construed as functionally equivalent to force.
B. The corporation's practical power to regulate the employee's behavior/lifestyle etc. outside of the job/off the premises (territory), as we have seen in news reports since the internet became ubiquitous, indicates at least the perception of the ability to coerce compliance, and, incidentally, is one of the reasons I classify them as a new type of government, one not tied to territory.
C. We already see them exercising a form of extraterritoriality in financial matters, in materials sourcing, in off-shoring and in other areas, just by exploiting international law and the differences between the laws of various sovereignties.
D. See A, B and C under the "rules" section, above.
And that's the point. My town's council is as much a government as the government of my country, though it is subject to and must comply with the laws of that government, and though the national government (sometimes) complies with international law. The government of Fiji, despite its lack of size and influence, is as much a government as that of China. Companies, while having power inside their own structure and enormous economic power outside themselves, while being subject to the laws of the places in which they operate, are often able to subvert or flout the intent of the laws of those places, by virtue of having parallel structures in other places where those laws don't apply, much as colonial powers could avoid contravening the laws and mores of the mother country by the simple expedient of operating in colonies where those concerns could be functionally ignored.
-
I agree with you that the boundaries between government and corporation is really hazy here; and maybe I should classify corporations as, maybe, proto-governments, as extra-governmental-neo-colonial-structures, or as entities-evolving-governmental-powers; and, now that I think of it, maybe I have been more than a little influenced by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling; but I do tend to think of them as new kinds of governing structures that are becoming, if they aren't already, as dangerous to our personal and economic liberty/freedom/independence, whatever you want to call it.
And I admit that using the idea "corporation=government," while inaccurate, is intended to make people react, possible think, and, maybe even, talk about it. Because I also think we need to think about the concept and discuss it before they become powerful enough to be governments-in-fact rather than just in-theory.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday May 06 2016, @04:20PM
I'm pulling quotes from your post out of order, homie.
I disagree about the importance of setting internal rules in the defining of a government.
I would argue that a government that is unable to set internal rules, be they called "rules," "laws," "regulations" or "ordinances," cannot be a government. The ability to enforce or at least the perception of the ability to enforce those rules, is also fundamental (and, incidentally, the consent of the governed to either the imposition of the rules or their enforcement is not required).
You're right of course, this is a necessary precondition. I meant (and phrased poorly) that it is not sufficient; if the rules you make are subject to greater laws, you aren't a sovereign state. This is sort of me pulling the tablecloth out from under our conversation, and I hope that I can manage it without upsetting the dishes; a municipal government is certainly a government of some sort, but they aren't a sovereign state. This is the language I should have been using all along, but wasn't. It's what I was talking about, but perhaps failed at communicating.
My town's council is as much a government as the government of my country, though it is subject to and must comply with the laws of that government, and though the national government (sometimes) complies with international law.
The international laws we have are really just agreements that anybody can break, and the only repercussions that can happen are either agreements between other sovereign states (such as embargos) or war. If this is the same thing as federal law trumping state and municipal law, we must view federal policing as an act of war against state and municipal governments.
If I live to see international laws reach beyond this, and there really is a UN police force that enforces laws on national governments, I will argue that we have a world government. I think the EU may be in the process of metamorphosing into a sovereign entity, [telegraph.co.uk] though I really don't keep up to date with it.
If you define "force" as "extreme or lethal force," you are right--companies are different from governments in that respect; however, if you, as an employee--and your family--are dependent on the income from a job and an employer's goodwill in obtaining other employment, economic coercion can be construed as functionally equivalent to force.
I'm not trying to downplay the impact that economic harm can have on somebody, but I think it is still ultimately being allowed by the sovereign state. Sovereign states can expropriate property at any time, and some of them do. They could force the corporation to keep paying you, and sometimes they do.