Freedom of Speech?

Keep in the back of your mind a very simple question: For who does freedom of speech apply?

Alright, Senator Baucus, according to the New York Times, has taken a Humana Inc. letter to their members, which stated that his bill's $123 billion cut to Medicare is going to hinder care for seniors, as a, well, here is the quote:

Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war. He complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal health-care agency, which on Friday duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was "misleading and confusing" and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.

Article quote over. If by now your common sense doesn't tell you why this has struck me as odd, I'll guide you a little further:

"it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers are allowed to communicate with their customers"

So there are laws about how a company can communicate with its customers? Does this law LEGALIZE only certain forms of communication, like store front displays? Does it regulate those displays to be reasonable, fair, unoffensive? Where are these laws? Who passed the laws? Why has nobody asked these questions, found the answers, and made a Constitutional challenge?

Now, remember that question: For who does freedom of speech apply?

It is without doubt that it applies to us, citizens, people within the United States. We as citizens have the right to form companies, or join unions. However, does our freedom of speech extend to those companies and unions?

It does for unions. I can name at least four precedents off the top of my head where union speech was protected regardless of controversy. However, laws, according to Baucus, exist to dictate how a company may use its freedom of speech. Two possibilities come up: not only Baucus but CMS, a government agency, has lied about these laws or: unions are protected, companies are not. The first one is very likely, and the second one leads to yet another question: why are unions protected by freedom of speech but companies are not?

However lets look at the full scope: one company against the health care gets threats and investigated and the rule is expanded to all Advantage providers. What about those other companies supporting the plan and sending out messages? Will they be charged with the communication violations?

I will do something I have only done in regards to the international alliance so far and make a prediction: We will not see the news reports about the Humana investigation when it starts. If charged, Humana will be the primary example of government intimidation and you will see market opposition to the government's proposals disappear. When the "elite" they constantly claim is the only source of opposition is gone, we will see individuals, based on wealth and then by audience, become targets and be silenced.

When we allow companies to be given double standards to unions and other companies when it comes to freedom of speech, we also allow it to be applied to individuals. Companies are an economic art, a form of expression of skills in management, product creation. When art projects such as the infamous "Jesus in a jar of urine" display are funded by the government and protected by freedom of speech, we must allow the arts in business to be protected as well. A message sent by a company is a message sent by an individual or groups of individuals. If the message of a union represents its members, the message of a company must also be protected as it represents its owners.

We must challenge these "laws" which violate our Constitution, the highest law of the land.