See, I think you and I are not understanding each other. I tend to believe that an entity founded for the purpose of pooling capital to generate profit should b

See, I think you and I are not understanding each other. I tend to believe that an entity founded for the purpose of pooling capital to generate profit should be restricted to doing those things which are necessary to its purpose. Engaging in political activism isn't one of those things. If the particular field of endeavor of that entity is publishing books or movies, then that's perfectly all right, but I'd argue there's a right on the part of the government to, for example, police it for signs of really being a political-action organization rather than a profit-making one, and to regulate its actions accordingly. Nothing about that does away with publishers. Nothing about it even does away with the ability of publishers to publish the political opinions of individuals. Most publishing houses do this and do it with little or no care as to what the opinions are, because even political opinions the publisher's executive disagrees with can be very lucrative to publish, and the executive is charged with making money rather than with enforcing some sort of political opinion. And any and every counterexample that tries to muddy the waters by arguing that an individual's ability to publish would be impacted is going to fail in a similar way. Please, stop trying to make some counterexamples.