Yep, my point when asking you to clarify was to see whether you were making this argument: "the Supreme Court will let basically anything crazy count as free sp

Yep, my point when asking you to clarify was to see whether you were making this argument: "the Supreme Court will let basically anything crazy count as free speech, so why not this?" It seems like indeed you were. But Citizens United doesn't rely on a broad interpretation of freedom of speech at all. It relies on a broad interpretation of freedom of association. Supporting various political views is "speech" by any possible understanding -- that's not broad at all. The main "innovation" of Citizens United is that when people form associations (like corporations) they retain certain rights, such as freedom of speech. A better analogy would be if we already all agreed that individuals have the right to send encrypted messages, and we were discussing whether corporations retained the same rights. Then you'd have a point, bringing up Citizens United. But when discussing whether people have some underlying right at all, it doesn't seem relevant.