Alito Calls Free-Speech Limits 'Dangerous' as Court Considers Cases (McCain/Feingold overturned?)

The Washington Post ^ | June 14, 2007 | Robert Barnes

[2ndDivisionVet]

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. made it clear as he began taking questions at yesterday's National Italian American Foundation luncheon that he couldn't reveal any of the Supreme Court's forthcoming opinions.

But did he at least give a hint?

Two of the court's biggest remaining cases focus on the First Amendment, and while Alito didn't mention either, he did make it clear that any restrictions on speech face a high hurdle with him.

"I'm a very strong believer in the First Amendment and the right of people to speak and to write," Alito said in response to a question of "where's the line" on what can be posted on the Internet. "I would be reluctant to support restrictions on what people could say."

The newest justice, who was protective of speech rights as an appellate judge, added that "some restrictions have been held to be consistent with the First Amendment, but it's very dangerous for the government to restrict speech."

Alito's vote is expected to be influential and perhaps decisive in two of the court's biggest cases concerning free-speech restrictions.

--snip--

And the court is also deciding a challenge to a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that says corporations, unions and special interest groups may not name federal candidates in ads broadcast in the run-up to elections. A group called Wisconsin Right to Life says that is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

The court broadly upheld McCain-Feingold's restrictions in 2003 on a 5 to 4 vote, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the majority. Because Alito replaced O'Connor, his vote is seen as key in the new and specific challenge.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Cross your fingers...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Alito said in response to a question of "where's the line" on what can be posted on the Internet. "I would be reluctant to support restrictions on what people could say."

Huzzah for Sam Alito!

And thanks be to God that SDO retired!

[jmaroneps37]

If we get this one and add it to the dues check off win, it will be a very nice term.:-)

[BlessedBeGod]

We can only hope...

[LibLieSlayer]

“The court broadly upheld McCain-Feingold’s restrictions in 2003 on a 5 to 4 vote”

5 to 4 ain’t broad-ly upheld... but a “broad” is why it passed!

LLS

[ChildOfThe60s]

Let’s see, a 5-4 decision upholding individual freedom of any kind is referred to as a “narrow decision” by the Post and NYT, but a 5-4 decison limiting free speech is “broadly upheld”.

Nauseating. But they’re consistent, that’s for certain.

[sirchtruth]

Free-Speech limits are just not "dangerous" they are complete wrong and go against the very foundation of America's freedom. The whole fabric of our society would crumble if people had to watch what they wanted to say or were silence by specific legislative forces.

The genius of America's system is you can say whatever you want no matter how intellegent or stupid it may be!

[Enchante]

It always astounds me how many liberals and RINOs are so much more eager to restrict political expression (ala McCain/Feingold) than they are to allow any sort of limits on terrorist incitement and collusion, i.e., if any sort of 1st Amend. limits are to be allowed it should be to root out the worst terrorists and their supporters, not to trash political speech.

[Pirate21]

And the court is also deciding a challenge to a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that says corporations, unions and special interest groups may not name federal candidates in ads broadcast in the run-up to elections. A group called Wisconsin Right to Life says that is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

May be of related interest: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in National Right to Work Foundation’s Case: Union Officials Have No Constitutional Right to Spend Employees’ Forced Dues for Politics

[Melchior]

Hurrah for Harriet Myers! Bush’s stupidity played into the hands of the Conservatives.

[corlorde]

You beat me to it. I bet Harriet would have agreed that there should be limits to free speech.

[yahoo]

You beat me to it. I bet Harriet would have agreed that there should be limits to free speech.

Only if Dubya told her to.

[colorado tanker]

"I'm a very strong believer in the First Amendment and the right of people to speak and to write," Alito said in response to a question of "where's the line" on what can be posted on the Internet. "I would be reluctant to support restrictions on what people could say."

Bad news for the Democrats who want to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" to censor talk radio.

[dangus]

In fairness, “broadly” didn’t refer to the margin, but to the fact that most of McCain-Feingold was upheld: the court did not “completely” uphold it, but only “broadly” upheld it. The issue will be whether Alito “narrowly” sides with those seeking to overturn McCain-Feingold, leaving SDO’s prior ruling intact while merely ruling on this one matter, or whether the final decision “broadly” limits McCain-Feingold.

[dangus]

>> Only if Dubya told her to. <<

I think the commands flowed the other way. Her former job was his legal counsel.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I’ll buy that. It’s a valid point.

But....you will admit that news coverage wording of 5-4 decisions carries a different tone depending on whether the decision is positive for the left or right?

[Sonny M]

But....you will admit that news coverage wording of 5-4 decisions carries a different tone depending on whether the decision is positive for the left or right?

I still remember the New York Daily News in 2000 during the Bush/Gore fiasco calling a 4-3 Florida decision, broad and near unanimous and the Bush scotus decision that overturned it, narrow.

[Sonny M]

But....you will admit that news coverage wording of 5-4 decisions carries a different tone depending on whether the decision is positive for the left or right?

I still remember the New York Daily News in 2000 during the Bush/Gore fiasco calling a 4-3 Florida decision, broad and near unanimous and the Bush scotus decision (5-4) that overturned it, narrow.

[yahoo]

Her former job was his legal counsel lackey.

Fixed.

[dangus]

Yes, it’s just that in this one case, I don’t think the author intended bias.