> there is no way of abridging the speech of corporations without also abridging the speech of the humans within that corporation Sure there is. If corporation

> there is no way of abridging the speech of corporations without also abridging the speech of the humans within that corporation Sure there is. If corporations (/LLCs) were prohibited from directing their humans to say specific things as part of their employment, those humans can still say whatever they want on their own time. > Also, abridging corporate speech creates a precedent for abridging the speech of all human collective entities It's disingenuous to pretend that a corporation (/LLC) is just some group of people. Rather it's an entity that has gone out of its way to obtain a government created liability shield. Conditioning that grant on following extra regulations aimed at mitigating the harm caused by the extreme scale fostered by the limited liability makes perfect sense. > corporations as an abstract entity created by humans to express collective human will Wut? The corporate mechanic is that of directing humans in a top-down fashion. The only people thinking corporations represent "collective human will" are the ownership and managerial classes who either are the people directing the corporation top-down, or at least have to repeat enough of the corporate kool-aid to get promoted. The majority of people view them as the least-worst option to receive a paycheck and often see their own wills suppressed - even though respecting that distributed intelligence would often help the corporation (ie "shit rolls downhill").