= Corporations and carpools =


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of this subreddit to feature stories with headlines that are preposterous and onion-like?
No, the purpose of the subreddit is to submit articles that are preposterous and Onion-like but actually true. In this case the article meets those qualities, the headline unfortunately doesn't though

The rules of the subreddit forbid changing the title of the submission. It reallywhen theres a juicy article like this with atitle

I thought it was to have stories that are onion like even if the headlines are not

I'm not sure if this guy is awesome for using this as an excuse to challenge "corporations are people" (which he would never win and, in truth, does not really apply to the Citizens United case, which was argued "First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers", which applied to both unions and corporations, not because corporations were people) or if he is just alooking to get out of a ticket like anywith aup doll in the passenger seat

The article says that he has been challenging corporation personhood for a long time. So my guess is that it is the former

I really hope they decide that he can use his article of incorporation to carpool

So what might happen here?
He wins his challenge in court, has his fine dismissed and then what? Will he stop whining about corporate personhood?
I am always amazed that people think they can play gotcha with the legal system. They think that by getting a judge to say something they can later use this as proof of something else. While there is some basis in this. What this guy and others like him are doing just won't work

Just because the judge might rule that corporations don't count as persons for the purpose of carpools doesn't mean that corporations will automatically not count as persons in other circumstance

== About Community ==
Readers
Online