What is the major difference between business speech and political speech?

Solution Preview

1. What is the major difference between business speech and political speech?
Business speech relates to different business situations, including speeches to inform, entertains, and persuade. The situations maybe interviews, sales, technical reports, and conference speaking.
Business speech can be about the performance of a business during a year, say a good year, the need to adapt, review of a tough year, outline of a problem solving strategy and the performance improvement.
On of the areas of business where speaking is important is the area of sales. Providing insightful assistance to sales is important to solve the toughest challenges.

A political speech relates to social relations involving authority or power, the study of government of states and other political units, the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs and the opinion you hold with respect to political questions. A political speech relates to the process and method of making decisions for groups. The most common is government decision making. Although these are generally applied to governments, political speeches are also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Political speeches pertain to distribution of power within a society; the forces behind a society-human or divine.
Commonly political speeches relate to the activities of government.
Political speeches facilitate the process by which a community's decisions are made, rules for group behavior are established, competition for positions of leadership are regulated, and the disruptive effects of disputes are minimized.

2. Closely regulated industries are not afforded all Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. Is this fair, or is it necessary to protect the greater good?
Information obtained from http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com:

In general it is fair in case of highly regulated industry. The liquor and firearms exceptions were distinguished on the basis that those industries had a long tradition of close government supervision, so that a person in those businesses gave up his privacy expectations. But OSHA was a relatively recent statute and it regulated practically every business in or affecting interstate commerce; it was not open to a legislature to extend regulation and then follow it with warrant less inspections. Additionally, OSHA inspectors had unbounded discretion in choosing which businesses to inspect and when to do so, leaving businesses at the mercy of possibly arbitrary actions and certainly with no assurances as to limitation on scope and standards of inspections. Further, warrant less inspections were found to be not necessary to serve an important governmental interest, as most businesses would consent to inspection and it was not inconvenient to require OSHA to resort to an administrative warrant in order to inspect sites where consent was denied.
Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, governing underground and surface mines (including stone quarries), federal officers are directed to inspect underground mines at least four times a year and surface mines at least twice a year, pursuant to extensive regulations as to standards of safety. In this case the issue is the safety of the mines and in my opinion it is fair and in general good. The statute specifically provides for absence of advanced notice and requires the Secretary of Labor to institute court actions for injunctive and other relief in cases in which inspectors are denied admission. These surprise inspection are supposed to keep mines in good condition.
Why is FMSH perceived to be fair? First, FMSHA involved a single industry, unlike the broad coverage in Barlow's. ...