Article 4. Government shall make no law which restricts the right of a manager, business owner, or employee to transmit to the public, to owners, to other employees, or to other companies including competitors, any truthful or factual information which is legitimately theirs to transmit.

Under the antitrust laws, business competitors are prohibited from discussing prices and terms of sale. This restriction is justified on the grounds that collusion among competitors leads to higher prices, and is therefore undesirable. However this is a "cost-effectiveness" argument for restricting freedom of speech. A similar argument with regard to pornographers and revolutionaries would never be accepted by civil libertarians. There is even less justification for accepting it with regard to business owners and managers.

Under existing labor relations laws, employers are prohibited from making promises to their employees about actions they will take concerning a union certification election. This restriction on employers' freedom of speech is justified on the grounds that they have the power to make good on their offers, which puts the union at a disadvantage. This is simply another "cost effectiveness" argument and does not justify denying freedom of speech to an employer.

The most common form of publication that business firms engage in is advertising. There are numerous restrictions placed on advertising by business firms. One example is the recent ruling by the FTC which prohibited several food producers from advertising that their products contained no cholesterol, even though the claim was true. The FTC's argument was that people might be misled into thinking that the products weren't fattening. Such restrictions would be unconstitutional if imposed on the editorial pages of a newspaper. They should likewise be recognized as unconstitutional when imposed on the advertising pages. False advertising is clearly harmful. However, interfering with freedom of the press is even more harmful.