On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It restored the First Amendment protection of political speech. It also inspired the scorn of incumbent Democrat politicians. (more)
Thanks to the ACLU of Pennsylvania, motorists in that state will be free to swear at and give the finger to police officers and other motorists, thus lowering public decency another notch. Meanwhile, the officers themselves will be forced to undergo “training” on the “right” to flip people off. (more)
Small farmer advocacy groups disagree over what the Food Safety Modernization Act (SB 510), a measure that would substantially increase the power and reach of the Food and Drug Administration, will mean for small farmers if passed by the Senate Tuesday. (more)
When I think of the influence money has had in U.S. elections, I’m reminded of that wonderful scene in the 1963 motion picture Cleopatra where Egypt, in a Senate vote, officially becomes Rome’s ally under some rather “surprising” circumstances: (more)
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of two Colorado residents who were excluded from a speech by President Bush in 2005 because White House aides saw them arrive in a car with a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No More Blood For Oil.” (more)
On Wednesday, the father of a dead Marine will ask the Supreme Court to uphold a multi-million dollar verdict against members of the church congregation that picketed his son’s funeral. The congregation, lead by its pastor, the militantly homophobic Fred Phelps, persuaded a federal court of appeals that its message was hyperbole and that the First Amendment bars the lawsuit. Albert Snyder, the bereaved father, contends that the First Amendment does not protect speech aimed at private individuals and designed to cause emotional distress. (more)
Each and every day, it becomes less likely that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will sue producers of “The Social Network.” If he wanted to file a splashy lawsuit, he probably would have already, and, as THR has already reported, he decided early on not to take an especially adversarial position on the movie. (more)
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer caused a brief firestorm this week after he appeared to suggest that under certain circumstances, burning a Quran would not be protected under the First Amendment because of the violent reaction it could cause. (more)
Former Florida Senate candidate and Palm Beach billionaire Jeff Greene is suing The Miami Herald and The St. Petersburg Times for libel, claiming the newspapers knowingly ran stories about him that were untrue with intent to ruin his candidacy. (more)
Ronald Reagan quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” And so it goes with modern government-directed campaign finance programs — schemes designed to harm traditionally-funded candidates (those who raise money by persuading individuals to make voluntary donations) and make it easier for government-funded candidates to promote their message. (more)
Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan has a history of showing keen interest in devising ways to shape and increase regulation of speech, particularly hate speech and pornography, a review of her public comments and writings show. (more)
The DISCLOSE Act, which Democrats hope will help offset some of the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC earlier this year, is nothing if not contentious. Supporters of the campaign finance reform bill say it would limit the role of money in elections. Critics claim it would unconstitutionally suppress free speech and that, for a transparency bill, it seems a little too secretive. (more)
Watching the liberal media claw at Rand Paul like a pack of rabid hyenas has been particularly frustrating, considering Paul could so easily turn the the fight around on them. (more)
“Congress shall make no law … 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.” (more)
Two recent news stories have left me puzzled. That’s nothing new but in this case, I may need some help sorting this out. (more)
Three months ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court decided that Congress may not prohibit funding of political speech by corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit groups. Congress promised a quick response to that decision. That response—the DISCLOSE Act—has one good feature—and several bad ones. (more)
What’s legal for billionaires to do alone, but illegal for you to do with your neighbors? Until a federal court decision last Friday, the surprising answer was: spend freely on political ads. (more)
The five Supreme Court Justices who formed the majority in Citizens United v. FEC—in which the Court held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to call for the election or defeat of candidates—can be forgiven if they view certain corporations that benefited from their ruling as a bunch of ingrates. Since Citizens United was decided in January, a large group of media corporations, including the ones that own the New York Times and Washington Post, is still spending millions of dollars criticizing the decision as disastrous for democracy. In doing so, these corporations have ignored one basic fact: If Citizens United had sanctioned the suppression of speech merely because it is uttered by a corporation, then it would have opened the door for Congress to censor media corporations’ speech. (more)
WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision. (more)
“It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in the Bill of Rights and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be absolutes….[The first Amendment] provides, in simple words, that ‘Congress make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or the press. I read ‘no law abridging” to mean ‘no law abridging.’” — the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black (more)
