|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 :::
Does the first amendment mean anything whatsoever?In a case that could lead to a change in how political campaigns are funded, the Supreme Court Tuesday questioned a key part of federal campaign finance law during arguments over a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Government lawyers argued that conservative group Citizens United's 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie" is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws. I have asserted to Eric and Steve, years ago, that the freedom of speech is as much a right of the listener as of the speaker, and apparently Scalia agrees:Scalia took further exception to this ban because an on-demand movie requires the viewer to press a button to watch the movie--unlike a campaign commercial that randomly appears on one's television screen.
"The First Amendment interest is greater when what the government is trying to stifle is not just a speaker who wants to say something but also a hearer who wants to hear what the speaker has to say," Scalia said. It being a news story, it's not unlikely some of the quotes are taken out of context, but this seems interesting to me:"This sounds like campaign advocacy," Justice David Souter. "If that isn't an appeal to voters, I can't imagine what is," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg added. Perhaps there was some debate as to whether the law even applies to this case; if it doesn't, the law is on firmer ground. It's hard for me to see how the FEC action here is consistent with the first amendment; the constitution trumps federal law. If the first amendment protects anything, the case should be decided for the appellant; whether the federal law applies — whether this is campaign advocacy — is moot.Labels: free speech
::: posted by dWj at 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
