Thursday, January 28, 2010

"Who Decides How Much Americans Can Speak During Elections?"

Explains the McCain-Fiengold ruling that happened in the Supreme Court better than I could.

Will the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision destroy American democracy? You might think so given the responses of its critics. The Citizens United decision, far from signaling the fall of the republic, strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Political speech should be the most protected of all. As in, not censored or limited at all. Please read the entire report.

Besides, the ruling gets guys like Frank Schaeffer's panties all in a knot. That in and of itself is a good thing.

Remember Frank's four inevitable truths before reading him.

RELATED: Blogs just as protected under the First Amendment as the Press. Seeing how they are a natural progression of the news cycle.

The First Amendment protects all citizens in their ability to speak and write and blog.

In evaluating constitutional rights, some jurists and legal scholars use "originalism." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is perhaps foremost among them.

"Our manner of interpreting the Constitution," he says, "is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted."

Speech is speech, whether it's spoken, written on paper or transmitted over copper and glass. It ought to be protected as such.

No comments:

Post a Comment