to play devil’s advocate here: the US Constitution also makes no provision for computers, and it is scarcely conceivable that the drafters had anything resembling computers in mind when drafting the bill of rights.  I don’t disagree with the conclusion, just the supporting argument.

A more tenable position to take here is that corporations should only enjoy those protections that are specifically granted as part of their legislative definition; for example a corporation shouldn’t be able to use imminent self-preservation as a defense for killing a person.

Another argument is akin to stock dilution: the voices of the human citizens are diluted by the voices of the corporation (which may be ok).  And corporations that spend large sums on their voices disproportionately dilute those of the humans (which is not ok).

mikehudack:

southpol:

Business.view | The Economist

Yet the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. “It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights,” argue Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist, and Peter Murray, in a recent essay. All the individuals with a stake in a company have the right to express their views freely, the argument goes, so there is no need for the legal fiction of the corporate person to have such rights.