Re:Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign
by 13thLetter on Monday November 02, 2015 @07:12PM
(#10496431)
The plaintiffs in Citizens United, lest we forget, wanted to be permitted to release a movie critical of a presidential candidate during an election. If that is made illegal again, that strikes me as being quite definitely against the spirit of the First Amendment.
Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around and run infinite quantities of ads with infinite anonymous funding for said ads, too, to support "Hillary: The Movie", which wasn't actually a movie that they wanted to release, btw, it was actually a big long TV ad.
Come on, at least be intellectually honest.
They wanted to shadow-fund a TV ad campaign.
Clever of you to leave those facts out!
Re:Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign
by 13thLetter on Monday November 02, 2015 @08:58PM
(#10496869)
"Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around"
Wait, why would it be wrong to bash a politician around again?
Once again, you conveniently leave out the key part of the comment in question: the source of the funding.
Citizens United wasn't about speech. It was about unlimited anonymous money flooding our elections.
Nothing is wrong with criticizing a politician. That's obvious. But thanks for the clumsy obfuscation attempt.
Re:Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign
by hackerboos on Monday November 02, 2015 @11:53PM
(#10497634)
I disagree.
Even the ACLU supported the Citizen's United decision. [1]
It would be quite easy to overturn Citizens United, a weak 5-4 decision borne of highly-questionable provenance, without touching the First Amendment in any way.