Ok, let’s try a different way. Should Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. have 1A rights to publish its views, advertise its services, and push political causes?

The NYT is a big corporation that sells advertising and publishes stuff. Meta is a big corporation that sells advertising and publishes stuff. What’s the constitutional distinction?

Sure, money isn’t speech. Just like papers, ink, computers, cell phones, the internet, paintings, modulated radio waves, etc. Spot the issue? While money isn’t speech, if you allow regulation of money that people use to broadcast their speech, you effectively are regulating speech.

Why not? What’s the constitutional distinction between Meta and the New York Times?

Correct. People have 1A rights, and they don’t lose their 1A rights if they choose to act collectively through the legal fiction of a corporation.

I’m not sure what “in favor of corporate personhood” means here, but “money isn’t speech” is a slogan used by well-meaning people who’ve never thought closely about money and speech in the 1A arena. Since newspapers are almost all corporations, do you think newspapers should have 1A rights?

Do you think newspapers and labor unions are “persons”? If yes, why are they different than corporations? If no, are you sure you want to take first amendment protections away from newspapers and labor unions?

Big Senator Blutarsky energy

Real opportunity for using AI here.

Minister without portfolio Rubio ponders the choices that led to this point

Recognizing the limits of this medium, if it’s not about subjective motives, what did it mean to talk about purpose?

Seems like it would be easy to specifically identify one of these laws. Are they federal or state laws?

Sounds like a nice rhetorical point but is usable? To use this distinction don’t we have to distinguish conduct taken “just” for the wrong purpose from conduct with mixed or pure motives? So what’s the test for determining when someone is seeking common ground for one purpose or the other?

What law makes it illegal?

Plausible.

I suspect, but don’t know, that the definition’s focus on conception has to do with abortion politics and the possibility of sex-selective abortions.

It would be likely be more persuasive if you calibrated the scales using acts by Dems. E.g., what color would you assign Biden’s attempt to effect the 28th Amendment or blanket pardons to family members?

Do you really believe that? Seems more like you’re just saying that to make a different point.

The problem with this is that it’s incomplete-Americans also hate Commies, so we should reflexively reject those ideas-and a poor basis for politics because we are *all* too easily tempted to anathematize political opponents by reducing them to Nazi/Commie/Confederate