4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are in favor of book banning and speech censorship. F-O-U-R of them. And the 5 who voted in favor of the First Amendment are being called ACTIVISTS. Now, isn’t that ironic? To be in favor of the Constitution is now considered radical.
The case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission was decided last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, in a sqeeker vote that should scare all Americans. This case has unveiled to the public, the justices who would be in favor of censoring free speech and who are willling to ignore the first amendment’s stark and direct language:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
How much clearer could the Founders have been?
From the AP:
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?
Stewart said that it could.
“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel Alito said.
Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle.
“If it has one name, one use of the candidate’s name, it would be covered, correct?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
“That’s correct,” Stewart replied.
“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘And so vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
[David] Bossie [founder of Citizens United and maker of Hillary the Movie] said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.
“That sent a chill down the Supreme Court,” Bossie said. The argument became a “point of demarcation.”
The marxists progressives are now screaming outrage. This from the Wall Street Journal:
President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies” and other “special interests.” Mr. Obama didn’t mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one’s special interest. New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for “for-profit corporations.” Liberalism’s bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.
But the marxists progressives make no mention of networks like MSNBC that is owned by the corporate giant General Electric and that has been nothing short of the communications center for the Obama administration. This case protects their free speech, as well.
As David Bossie writes at BigJournalism.com:
Finally, as the Court acknowledged, the position that corporations cannot engage in political speech has a fatal logical flaw. Almost every major media outlet in the country is owned by a corporation and most of them advocate for or against candidates via endorsements, opinion columns, or politically-oriented programming. Why should General Electric, which owns MSNBC, be permitted to use its nearly unlimited resources to influence elections, while I, who made Hillary The Movie using corporate funds for roughly .03% of the budget, could be put in prison for airing the documentary?
What is really frightening is that TheOne has 3 more years to appoint justices. One more liberal appointment could change the entire complexion of the Constitution and it’s protection of Americans. Those appointees have to be confirmed by congress. This is just another urgent reason that Constitutionalists must be elected this year.