A company may be an entity and not a citizen, but how do you differentiate between GE and its spending through its subsidiaries to broadcast various views (or Fox for that matter) from other companies? This ruling seems to simply level the playing field with other companies (especially given the case on which the ruling was based). Just because corporations are allowed to spend money to broadcast a message doesn't make it convincing or effective - but why should they be denied the ability to broadcast a message?
From the article on the original ruling:
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
I don't care about the ruling. I'm explaining a flaw in the guy's logic.
I completely agree with you in that companies should be able to broadcast whatever message they want. After all it's the responsibility of the citizens to determine what's right.
But I think you're missing the point of my contention. I'm simply saying companies cannot be treated as a citizen in a government designed to serve the people. I'm saying companies are entities, and they are not a human being. They do not need to be fed food, or sleep, or care about people's suffering (unless it would be fiscally wise to do so).
From the article on the original ruling: “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”