I am a lawyer not some random facebook troll. There are minor differences but my argument is clear. The asymmetric advantage accrue to the benefit of companies because their are perpetual and abstract so not punished in anything equal to human persons.

> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights

> > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media

Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means.

> Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Except that you’re wrong: most of the articles shows broad overlap with ver few divergent rights.

More importantly none of the divergence undermines my argument that the US has extended rights too far and has not extended punishment far enough.