Quote Originally Posted by Kino
Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
The possibility of such damage is real and should be acknowledged -- it's just not justification for censorship, IMHO. Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be to blur out the details on the billboard, but I'd be reluctant to require such actions.
This is a subject that raises my hackles; being trained as a photojournalist, censorship should be called censorship, period.
As I did; note the word "censorship" the the above quote.

Don't take this personal, but your argument to alter the image is not acceptable under any circumstances and just the fact that anyone would even think it partially "reasonable" is frightening.
Please re-read what I wrote, and specifically the part that reads "I'd be reluctant to require such actions."

As much as US Corporations fight for and the government would LOVE to grant Corporations "free speech rights", they are and have never been individuals. It is extremely dangerous to begin to think that they either deserve or should be recognized as individuals UNLESS we can tax them as individuals and hold them responsible for their actions like individuals.
IANAL, but my understanding is that this is already the case. Corporations do enjoy free-speech rights and most other rights granted to individuals and they are taxed, although the details of how they're taxed are different than they are for individuals. They're also held responsible for their actions, although of course you can't lock a corporation in jail, so punishment for law-breaking is mostly in the form of fines.