Agreed that restrictions on political speech are antithetical to the purpose of the First Amendment.
What I don't agree with is that the First Amendment has any application to fictional entities that exist solely to make a profit, as opposed to individuals who have an unlimited range of legally-permissible interests and collections of individuals formed for associational, rather than profitmaking, purposes. XOM has precisely one goal: profit-maximization. If it takes any actions that are not directed at that goal, its directors are potentially liable to shareholders.[1]
I don't see that speech in support of such a motive is what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
no subject
What I don't agree with is that the First Amendment has any application to fictional entities that exist solely to make a profit, as opposed to individuals who have an unlimited range of legally-permissible interests and collections of individuals formed for associational, rather than profitmaking, purposes. XOM has precisely one goal: profit-maximization. If it takes any actions that are not directed at that goal, its directors are potentially liable to shareholders.[1]
I don't see that speech in support of such a motive is what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
[1] Although this is very difficult to establish.