Originally posted by FMF
Equating corporate distortion of the political process with 'freedom of speech' dilutes and undermines genuine 'freedom of speech'.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
This should be obvious. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." What part about "Congress shall make no law" don't the other justices understand? How can a Congressional ban on political speech, regardless of who pays for the printing press or ad space, especially when it's close to an election, make no "abridgment" upon the people's freedom of speech?
Justice Kennedy's opinion says it all:
“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/21/a-victory-for-free-speech/#ixzz0dIgkXQhp
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/21/a-victory-for-free-speech/#ixzz0dIgGEZWg