Posted on 11/08/2016 9:20:32 AM PST by VictimsRightsPro2a
Believe it or not, this election will determine whether political appointees can prohibit books and movies released during election years that criticize their policies or behavior.
It’s well known that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission concerns the role of money in politics, but it’s less often remarked that the decision centered around a 2008 film called “Hillary: The Movie,” a documentary critical of Mrs. Clinton. Arguing against Citizens United, a conservative non-profit, the Federal Election Commission made the case that because a film, such as “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced or distributed by a corporation (as are all commercial documentaries), it could be prohibited by the government. At oral argument, they went so far as to argue that such a ban could extend to books, pamphlets, and Internet sites produced or distributed by corporations. Fortunately, the Supreme Court said no. Unfortunately, four justices dissented from that common sense First Amendment ruling.
With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, however, the court is now split 4-4 on this issue. If given the chance, the four liberal justices would likely vote to overturn the decision.
Earlier this year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasserted: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.” Similarly, Justice Stephen Breyer has said that without the ability to ban these types of independent expenditures, he knows of no way to make campaign finance regulations work and constrain campaign spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolicy.com ...
Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” ...
Equally critically endangered is speech that can be characterized as hate speech. Soon, only government condoned speech will be allowed. The censorship boards will control speech in the same general manner that they did sexually suggestive expression in the 1930s to 1960s. Except that the penalties will carry prison or reeducation camps.
IF I decide to make a movie, or IF I decide to write a book about a political topic in an election year, and you try to arrest me. I would be morally justified in repelling you with all the violence needed to do so.
Bookmark
“Stephen Breyer has said that without the ability to ban these types of independent expenditures, he knows of no way to make campaign finance regulations work and constrain campaign spending.”
In other words, without the ability to restrict free speech, he knows of no way to achieve his other unconstitutional goal of constraining campaign spending.
Are they going to ban “Deliverance” ?
Sieg Heil
It’s only illegal if it attacks liberals. Otherwise it’s just dandy. And imagine if this rule was actually enforced. CNN ABC CBS NYT PBS et al would NEVER be allowed on the air. What would we all be forced to watch in airports???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.