"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[cthulu2016]

87. Incorrect on both, but the concepts are not absolute

Money.

The government outlaws the Anti-War Party sending out mailers saying it opposes the draft. Court strikes the law down.

Government comes back with, "It is illegal to donate money to the Anti-War Party for the purpose of funding their mailings of anti-draft literature."

Obviously that is just as unconstitutional.

Every time someone gives to an advocacy group like NARAL they are saying furthering the expression of a viewpoint with which they agree.

That does not mean, in my view, that campaign finance laws cannot exist. But the fact that money is part of speech/expression must be taken into account. The freedom of the printing press doesn't mean much if you don't have a printing press and that costs money.

Corporations.

Of course corporations are legal persons for many purposes. If a corporation borrows money and doesn't pay it back, who do you sue? Only a legal person can be party to a lawsuit. So for purposes of debt and liability and such a corporation is a legal "person."

And a corporation does have some expressive rights insofar as, like with the example of NARAL (a corporation, just like DU is a corporation), a corporation is an association of real people joined together for a purpose.

Where corporate person-hood becomes a problem is when, for instance, it is granted the 14th amendment rights of a person.

Corporate person-hood can go too far, and probably has, but the basic centuries old legal fiction of a corporation being a "person" (though not a human being) will never go away. You cannot murder a corporation but you can owe it money.