Do you think the government should regulate what movies you can see, what books can be read, or what movies can be advertised ?

Well,enter the Obama administration, which actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations, saying that such regulations were essential to limiting the amount of money spent on political campaigns.

On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.

When President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate's name, it could be covered?" Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: "That's correct." "It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?" Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

When the case was re argued before the Supreme Court in September, Stewart was replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan, realizing that the court was shocked by Stewart's statements, said that pamphlets, not books, could be banned. When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here's what she said: "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed.

However, President Obama is already vowing to overturn Thursday’s Supreme Court decision.

"I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision,"

A "forceful response" such as what, a new campaign finance law, trying to force the Supreme court to reverse their decision ?

What does this say for our country's future. It's not enough that they want to regulate our health care, they now appear to want to regulate the information we have access to.

Read More Here

No comments:

Post a Comment