Technically true, but irrelevant in this case. The supreme court decided that people working together have the same first amendment rights that they do working individually. I think it was the correct decision, even if the fallout from it isn’t good.
That's a different argument. And one profoundly flawed in its own way.
A corporate entity (that is, any entity comprised of two or more people) might have a need for legal rights, but there's no reason acceptable to me that it has to be on a notion of equivalence to "personhood", equivalent to human rights. And calling it that merely compounds both error and confusion.
Courts are not infallible. And the Santa Clara v. SPRR US origin is its own ball of bullshit.
A whole is not the same as its constituent parts.
A person isn't an organ, or a cell, or molecules, or quarks, despite being composed of each of these.