Why shouldn't a corporation have the right of Free Speech and Press?

Above you say "Why should one individual holding a sign at a rally be protected from government, but not three individuals (a group) holding a banner that they purchased in equal shares? You're saying it's socialist to protect the sign from being taken away from them, by government, because it's owned by a group."

Again you attempt to spin what I said to suit your purposes. If those 3 people own the sign together, the sign doesn't own itself. The people who own the sign have rights, the sign itself does not. Granting the sign legal 'rights' is idiotic, and very socialist.

Why don't you learn to read?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

I don't see anything there about groups of people do you?

I specifically see that the "men" and not "persons" was used. I doubt seriously you could show one shred of proof that Jefferson intended artificial juristic persons to be included in this protection.

Groups are not protected, or they shouldn't be; not at least as distinct from the individuals that make them up. THAT would be socialism. You would be protecting a collective.

Three individuals WOULD be protected because each of those individuals has the right to hold the banner and they have the right to own any portion of it they agree to. But they have this right because they are individuals not because they form a group. The group is not here considered an independent entity embued with its own rights. And that is what you are arguing for.

The only way the state can gain control over the means of production is via corporations. They have no way to do so outside of this mechanism.

In fact, it could easily be argued, that as creatures of the state, a corporation is ipso facto, the state itself and thus the state already controls those means where they have created corporations. The fact that individuals still own those means and can profit from them is only evidence that you are in some stage of fascism rather than full communism.

You still have not explained how you are not arguing to defend the collective against the individual and refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of the members of the group.

individuals still retain those rights. They do not lose them. That is what this case is all about.

If the court comes down on the side of denying individuals their rights merely because they are acting within the context of a legal entity such as a corporation, and that their speech is not really their speech, but that of the corporation, then this is not a bad thing. It will merely precipitate the ending of corporate person hood all together and that is a good thing as we've discussed on this thread and others.

While I would disagree with the court and believe that by operating in a corporation you don't lose your individual rights, if the court decided as such, it sure would make people take a long hard look at whether or not to incorporate.

I agree, that as long as they exist, corporations SHOULD be heavily regulated, as much as possible. They are creatures of the state, and they enjoy special privileges that the rest of us cannot enjoy. (nor should anyone) No one should be allowed to enjoy freedom from responsibility for their actions, especially merely because they have formed or invest in, a corporation.

Corporations are not free market entities as I have explained elsewhere in this thread, and so they should be eliminated. Short of that, it should be very disadvantageous to operate them. This would allow business to thrive and we could have a real shot at staving off statism. Corporations are socialist creatures, they are holdovers from mercantilism. Why would you want to preserve that?

But if you really are a socialist as you seem to be and want imaginary constructs to have rights instead of relying on the individual rights of Men, then I think you will be happy with the likely result out of the court. I suspect they will decide that Corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights via the 14th amendment and thus they will retain their rights as fictional entities to free speech and there will be no threat from government.

and not the corporation itself. The owners DO have that immunity except in certain circumstances. A non-incorporated owner HAS NO such immunity. You keep ignoring that. This is after all, the whole reason for incorporating.

And you are also ignoring that special laws had to be written to assign responsibility to that particular employee. That responsibility wouldn't otherwise exist because the corporate charter removes it.

Without a corporate charter, there is no need for special law assigning liability. The common law will assign responsibility to whomever was found in court to be guilty or culpable of the act. What pretext, such as in the conduct of business the act was committed in, is generally irrelevant.

But with a corporate charter, there is no one to hold accountable. It is presumed under the law that the corporation itself is a distinct person and it is this fictional person that committed the act. But you can't put a fictional entity in jail. So special law had to be written to assign someone to go to jail on behalf of the corporation in certain cases. Without this law, there is no liability on the part of the entity known as the corporation at all outside of what it has contracted with to its creditors. The owners have no liability for the actions of the corporation because they are not considered to be the ones committing the act, the fictional entity is.

If you can't understand this, then quite frankly you need to do some homework in studying the law.