The OP is making a (toungue-in-cheek) argument against corporate free speech. You said that corporate free speech rests upon a century of precedent and that without it, we couldn't have corporate immunity.<p>But "corporate immunity and corporate free speech come from the same legal doctrine" is a lot different from saying "you can't have corporate immunity without corporate free speech".  The latter is what you said, but your argument supports the former. Are you sure I'm the one who is confused?