To determine the veracity of the given statements, we need to analyze each one individually and in the context of the broader implications they present.

1. Statement I: "The right to communicate can prompt the emergence of negative liberty though its positive impact cannot be overlooked."
   • Explanation: The 'right to communicate' is a fundamental aspect of free speech and expression, considered a positive freedom. However, when discussing liberties in the context of negative liberty (freedom from interference), it can indeed lead to scenarios where unrestricted communication might harm others or potentially spread misinformation, which is a negative consequence.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, Statement I considers the dual nature of the right to communicate. It highlights how it can lead to potential misuse or harmful effects (negative liberty) while acknowledging the inherent benefits (positive impact).
2. Statement II: "The hidden impact of free market place has diluted the concept of free speech to suit the corporate ends."
   • Explanation: In a free market, economic entities or corporations often have significant power and influence over public discourse. They might sometimes shape narratives or limit free speech, either through media ownership or other means, aligning the concept of free speech with their interests.
   • Conclusion: Statement II accurately captures the concern that the influence of corporate interests, in a free market, might undermine genuine free speech by prioritizing profit or corporate messaging over individual expression.

Both statements are true as they accurately reflect the complexities involved with the right to communicate and the impact of market forces on free speech.

Correct Answer: Both Statement I and Statement II are true.