Nathan Newman wrote:
>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.
-And would John Q. Moneybags III, individual capitalist, behave any differently?
John Q Moneybags rarely controls property or assets which the public wants to regulate. He almost always controls such property through corporate entities. If the public cannot regulate the corporate entity, they lose the a lot of power to control corporate power.
Let me give an example I am working on right now. Hartford and Chicago are debating city ordinances that would require large retail establishments like Wal-Mart to allow the public (and union organizers) onto their property to talk to customers and employees. An argument the opposition lawyers are making is that this would violate the free speech rights of the companies to have to "associate" with speech on their property with which they disagree.
Nobody expects to force John Q. Moneybags to allow protesters onto his property, but we don't want to extend the same principle to corporations like Wal-Mart.
Nathan Newman