Political Speech Again Free Speech?

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jun 25, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    From Clayton Cramer:

    Good News: Political Speech is Again Protected Free Speech!

    Back in the February 1, 2004 Shotgun News, I wrote an article about why the Supreme Court couldn't be trusted. I mentioned specifically their decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), in which the Supreme Court decided that a federal law that prohibited political advertising within 60 days of a general election did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Yet the Court had previously decided that virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, and flag burning, were all protected by the First Amendment!

    You can argue if you like that the Framers wouldn't have had a problem with flag burning or tobacco advertising as protected free speech. But political speech? That is the core expression that the free speech clause was supposed to protect.

    Fortunately, the Court's occupants are not forever, and Justice O'Connor is not there anymore. Today, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2006), a 5-4 decision nibbled away at this outrageous censorship of political advocacy advertising, allowing advocacy groups to again run ads within 60 days of a general election that name specific candidates.
    Labels: freedom of speech


    posted by Clayton at 11:03 AM permalink
     
  2. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    =D> \:D/

    It's about time that stupid-:censored: decision started being corrected.

    Even if I disagree with folks, they have a protected right to have their voices heard without interference from .gov... even the antis.

    What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" seems to be confusing the supposed learned scholars?