Rodi Culotta, Esq. <rculotta@gmail.com>
9:25 PM (3 minutes ago)


I’ll have to take a little time to give you a thoughtful response. Off the top of my head, regarding limited liability for corporations, the original intent was to allow the accumulation of capital to start or operate a business which was cost-prohibitive to any one individual. The liability is limited to the assets of the corporation so that any individual investor does not risk bankruptcy in a case in which the corporation incurs liability. The limitation of liability is only for the investor. If you own 100 shares of GM, should you be personally responsible for a jury verdict against GM for, say, a faulty airbag? In the case of closely held corporations, there is a legal concept called “piercing the corporate veil” which allows recovery against a shareholder in certain instances.
In the case of Facebook, a subscriber waives certain rights simply by joining. You might have to do a bit of digging, but you will find the legalese somewhere on the site which sets forth the terms of the “implied contract”. In addition to the “gotcha’” clauses, the 1st amendment only applies to government actions. Absent some legal rules set forth by a legislature, Facebook can really just say, “if ya’ don’t like it, don’t use it.” I personally think that sucks, but I only own me, not Facebook.
Now, the question “why do I own myself” is much more problematic, but I believe that concept holds true even for atheists. This is the issue to which I need to give more thought.
You have, as usual, posed a very interesting topic for discussion.
-Rodi
