I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that co

I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that corporations held some of the protections of the Constitution. Which ones was not so clearly defined. First amendment protection is now so defined, but that does not make it brand new legal doctrine. It's based on long standing legal precedent. It is a clarification of law. You're making Valentine v. Chrestensen's decision much more broad than it actually is. Specifically, SCOTUS "ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen). Commercial speech has a very specific definition in law. It's about advertising. The decisions later about Hobby Lobby have very little to do with Valentine v Chrestensen nor Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, because Hobby Lobby's case was not about commercial speech. Same with Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because they were about political speech.