WIkipedia's discussion on libel and slander has some interesting points:
"Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[13]
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. [edit] Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others.[14]
Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.[15]
There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalize defamation.[16][17] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986)."
The ERROR in the situation is NOT the protection of the basic First Amendment Right against incursions of free speech. The ERROR is in making the right of a large corporation with a war-chest identical in effect to the right of a citizen.
This comes, in my opinion, from a blind spot about what citizenship means.
The original protection of "corporations as citizens" probably came with the realization that such a protection would make them liable for taxation same as individuals. It could be well argued that this is double jeopardy, I guess.
The other liability of this error is that it means employees and share-holders making up the corporation are having their voices subordinated to the decisions of the directors or their delegates of the corporation, which is surely a misrepresentation. For example, if AT&T throws its weight behind John McCain, it implies all iPhone users are supporting him. This is probably not a true representation.