The summation of Irami's argument is that speech is an action that needs protection. However, he makes a distinction about what type of speech should be protected based on the intention of the speaker.
He argues that speeches that are made by the spokesperson of super packs or large fortune 500 corporations that are intended to influence people should not be protected and should be regulated like other forms of marketing advertisement.
On the other hand, speech that seeks truth should be protected as a right. What are your thoughts? Can there be such a distinction between which speech gets protected and which does not?
Do companies have rights as citizens that we must protect? How are citizens' rights different from the privileges that companies have to do business?