Thus, the First Amendment has been turned into a joke, as anyone who wants to can find some nook or fold in its wording into which they imagine they can slip their product. And, alas, there will always be those who are swift to support this, usually bleating comparisons to Nazi Germany (oh, yes, the Nazis are protected, too!) and brandishing scare tactics that suggest a little common sense would lead overnight to repression and book burning.


* When the Founding Fathers chose to include protection of "the press" they meant literally the printing press. They did not use the term as we do today, as slang for newspapers and other such journalism. Those, by virtue of being produced on printing presses were, of course, protected, tho there were still laws of libel and slander to counterbalance the excesses that would, and have been born out of abuse of the First Amendment.

Ian Evans wrote: Are you guys honestly telling me that I didn't overdo it enough so that you got that I was kidding??  Please tell me Glenn got it, at least...!

You did.  I got it.  I got it so much that I got turned around and couldn't tell if THEY were kidding.

John Byrne wrote: It often seems far too little consideration is given to content over format. Thus, the debate becomes over the questions of whether something like CDs are protected (decision says yes), without much thought to whether a rap "song" that encourages the rape and brutalization of women should, indeed, be afforded the same protection as, say, an essay protesting such treatment.

And even further confounding the issue, we have broadened the ban or regulation (through laws like McCain/Feingold) of direct political speech which advocates that an incumbent should be defeated in an imminent election.  It's like a full circle -- we are most protective of speech the framers hadn't even contemplated, but reckless in our protection of the very kind of advocacy they were trying to protec.

By the way red is my favorite color and i like this kind of pull/sweater. When I was ten years old I had one:

I still like it today, maybe i'ld buy one if i find it.

Like I said I love this color.

I don't think this is my dark side, but who knows? We all have one I think:

I may be misunderstanding you, here, but I do not recall anyting in McCain/Feingold that could be thus described. Which part or parts are you referencing?

"Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?  There's a little thing in there called the First Amendment that you maybe ought to read, buddy. "

John -- while of the Declaration is important historically, it is really just a piece of paper [albeit with a hidden map on the back]. I think you mean the constitution.

John Byrne wrote: I may be misunderstanding you, here, but I do not recall anyting in McCain/Feingold that could be thus described. Which part or parts are you referencing?

McCain/Feingold defines as "electioneering communication" as (and I paraphrase) and advertisement which refers to a "clearly identified candidate" within 60 days of a general election, 30 days of a primary.  (Section 201) The 30 to 60 day period is what I referred to as before an imminent election.

Once you fall into the definition of an "electioneering communication," it's virtually impossible to legally fund an ad except one that is paid for by hard money contributions (which favors incumbents tremendously).  Some of the "bans" which contributed to the blackout include -- (1) no "coordination" with a candidate, or else use hard money; (2) no corporation or labor union can be the funder of the ad (this includes non-profit corporations -- virtually every type of legal entity or organization cannot fund an ad that identifies the candidate.  And even if you find a way to do it (say, if you were a wealthy individual), you have to file by name with the federal government that you are doing it.  (See generally the Sections in the 200 series).  There is a link to the text of the law here.

It's a scheme that perpetuates incumbency by making it difficult to mount opposition near an election.  It works as a virtual blackout on "electioneering communications" by making true issue-oriented, organized speech impossible.  I am willing to live with a quite a few schlocky ads in order to uphold the power of the people to try and get incumbents tossed out.  (Or stupid challengers, for that matter).

Scalia's dissent when the law was held constitution is in my opinion of the free speech problems -- Cornell has handy link to Scalia's dissent here.