To achieve the necessary scope of the First Amendment law topic the content certainly had to be edited down from all that could have been said, including editing out much that could beneficially been said.

Again, as a lay person, I am impressed with the powerful sweep of language used in law and the fundamental principles that speech can convey.

If this were tuned to an audience willing to commit to a longer presentation I would liked to have seen some excerpts from the opinion, such as this one addressing the anti-distortion rationale.

“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.”

I thought the closing note of video 3 was especially powerful. A government with too much power is especially one which must be bought off or curried for favor.

Relatedly, I think a Government stirring populist masses against industry even creates an extortive incentive for government to flex power in that it can then extract contributions or “access payments” from those they threaten to regulate.

And when Government does propose to regulate an industry, as is ever more the case, those in the industry do have an expertise (and role in the debate) that the listener, the voter, is entitled to hear.

Believe me, this blog isn’t well visited enough to make it worth anyone’s while to plant fake comments about the posts.

As I thought was clear from the video, corporations are simply organizations of people. Why should a corporation be barred from speech simply for being an organization? Should other organizations of people such as clubs, professional groups, or even political parties be barred from political speech as well? After all, clubs, professional groups, and political parties are not We the People either by your reasoning. So what is it about a corporation that makes you think they don’t deserve the protection of the First Amendment?

If we were to apply your reasoning further, the government would be permitted to abolish a corporation’s right to hold property as well because it is not a person. What makes the right to hold property different from the right to speak?

Lastly, your claim about 80% of people disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision, is worse than irrelevant. When the government violates the Constitution, no amount of public approval makes it okay. That is why Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected by the people.

but what’s next: if corporations have now been given human ”unalienable” rights which are protected by the constitution (which btw does NOT mention corporations ~ for the simple reason that it’s about We the People) then of course they can vote? (do they need to? they already count the votes…hmmm…)

corporations are not We the People. period end of discussion.

Nice jabs too – e.g. “congress can’t pass up a chance to create a new bureaucracy.”