Isn it difficult to distinguish between protected political speech and commercial speech, which receives a lesser level of protection?
The critical distinction is the speaker, not the speech. Human beings have full protection for their speech. But ultimately, all corporate speech is commercial speech. As one of the amicus briefs filed on behalf of Nike Inc. acknowledges, corporations (for-profit, traded), unlike humans, are one-dimensional, artificial entities with profit as their sole purpose. The brief by trade groups representing the world’s largest public relations firms makes this point explicitly: “corporations are entities whose decision makers owe fiduciary duty to its shareholders and owners” and that “no responsible corporate spokesman speaks on a company’s behalf without being concerned about the effects those statements may have on corporate sales and profits.” The brief goes on: “all corporate speech is, and should be, uttered in the interests of benefiting the corporation in the eyes of potential consumers.” Given this view, a strong presumption should prevail that all corporate claims concerning its pro
Related Questions
- How does growth in the number of interest groups and political action committees make it difficult for the federal government to enact public policy?
- Isn it difficult to distinguish between protected political speech and commercial speech, which receives a lesser level of protection?
- To improve the level of students who arrive at university, should we make the bac more difficult?
