> "shall make no law" works for freedom of speech because by default speech is unregulated. The framing doesn't work for preventing unwelcome perception even by the government, because unwelcome perception results from actions that are by default unregulated.

I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point.

> For this to make sense, the current surveillance economy would have to only been enabled by congressional law that allowed them to start creating dossiers. As far as I'm aware...this is not the case. Rather the surveillance economy is legal by default, and no laws have made it illegal.

A principle factor in the development of speech protection is technology, starting with the printing press and moving into domains like clothing. Technology has enabled speech to flourish in more ways than anyone could possibly imagine. Yet, the protections on speech are some of the most robust that we have, even after 200+ years when certain forms of speech cause direct harm and conflict with other constitutionally-protected rights.

Perception is even more fundamental than speech. Consider that perception has been around for longer in human existence than speech; all animals and babies perceive, after all. From a technological standpoint, the camera has been around for less than 200 years, and the first modern considerations of privacy stem from an issue with public photography (see Warren and Brandeis). Frankly, I believe we're only just realizing the impacts of unwelcome perception because of the present state of technology. The impact of unwelcome perception can cause as much if not more pain than insults; I personally believe more it's more painful.

My point here is, both speech and perception are by default unregulated and changes how another human feels and therefore acts. When weaponized by large entities using technology, speech is used to oppress. Making freedom from unwelcome perception a constitutional principle would be revolutionary in the purest sense of the word, bringing much challenge to its implementation, but I resolutely believe it would prove as foundational to protecting liberty as protecting freedom of speech, if not even moreso.

If you would use a different word than "unwelcome," I'm interested to hear what it is and why you prefer it.

> definition of a legal entity

"An entity refers to a person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation. An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. An entity is capable of operating legally, suing and making decisions through agents, e.g. a corporation, a state, or an association. A legal entity corresponds to the notion of a legal person. A legal entity holds rights, and each entity has a legal status" [1].

Perhaps "entity" is too broad. The term "artificial person" [2] is more targeted.

> I'd say the thing massive corporations have errently convinced us of is that they should have equivalent standing as individuals.

Great point. They're persons, but they're artificial persons, so a distinction should be made in the law.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person