Actually, there are many legal restrictions on free speech in the U.S., which is one of several reasons why the matter is not clear-cut and the decision was far from unanimous.
I'm of somewhat undecided mind about this, as with most free speech issues. I think the U.S. sometimes errs to far on allowing it due to it being enshrined as a right. I think other countries, such as Britain, sometimes err too far in the other direction because it is not. Ultimately I think speech should be unrestricted until and unless it harms people - but unfortunately, it's hard to consistently and fairly define where that line is drawn.
Incidentally, it is a textbook-perfect (and rather silly) strawman argument to say that an opposition to granting corporations certain rights of personhood equates to stripping them of all legal status and rights.
I'm of somewhat undecided mind about this, as with most free speech issues. I think the U.S. sometimes errs to far on allowing it due to it being enshrined as a right. I think other countries, such as Britain, sometimes err too far in the other direction because it is not. Ultimately I think speech should be unrestricted until and unless it harms people - but unfortunately, it's hard to consistently and fairly define where that line is drawn.
Incidentally, it is a textbook-perfect (and rather silly) strawman argument to say that an opposition to granting corporations certain rights of personhood equates to stripping them of all legal status and rights.