On Nov 30, 2004, at 2:20 PM, Nathan Newman wrote:
> But the free speech claims on behalf of corporations has become
> especially
> pernicious and in an information age, a lot of their activity has free
> speech implications, so it can allow them to escape a lot of government
> regulation potentially.
-Has there been any attempt to narrow the range of corporations' free -speech claims by arguing that they are much more powerful and richer, -and thus can buy more "speech," than actual persons, for which the -First Amendment was presumably written? Or is that too legally naive an -approach?
The issue is less the corporations asserting a right to speak in some forum -- although the advertising cases have massively cut the ability of government to regulate corporate advertising -- but on the corporate right NOT to speak or be forced to associate with speech they don't want to be associated with. It allows companies to avoid public responsibilities where they might be forced to "speak" to the public in ways they don't agree with.
Nathan Newman