Yep, that's bullshit.
No it's not well known, but it is frequently asserted by people who want to spin things that way.
Believe whatever makes you sleep at night.
So, people used to argue that abolishing slavery was against the public interest, as it would damage the economy, ruin long-held family estates, etc. Would you consider abolishing slavery to be immoral? No? I see.
You're being willfully trollish and ignorant. We're done.
So it comes down to what you think is "in the public interest."
Very easy to tell when you're not being willfully trollish and ignorant. But then again your whole thought process could be flawed courtesy of the horribly butchered american indoctrinational system.
I, for example, don't think it's in the public interest to establish and maintain a dependency-creating welfare state.
There we go, now you tore off your mask. Just another right wing reactionary propagandist at work.
people suddenly evil an immoral when they seek to persuade legislators to see things their way?
Yes, because legislators ought to act in the public interest because - as it is the case for the US - the alternative is plutocracy.
No, the US calls it "freedom of assembly and speech," and it's protected under the very first amendment of the constitution.
What a peculiar spin you've got there!
It is well known that the US is not a democracy but a plutocracy so even if i were to concede your point i would be simply pointing out another way for the rich to have their way against the public interest, simply because granting this (very much bent) definition of "freedom of speech and assembly" grants them the economic upper hand.
I don't care how you spin it, anything against the public interest is clearly IMMORAL.
Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries