Replies

Those who don’t study history are condemned to repeat it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Stamped docs. Imagine that. And for the past 10 years they’ve been telling us that information just wants to be free. Yet...the ones saying that are heavily vested in intellectual property and valued at multibillions by disenfranchising the bloggers who actually believe free speech—talk—is cheap. Words mean things. Ideas matter.

God save the USA.

Thanks for the ping, which I somehow seem to have missed originally :(

John: Since the Republican Party is seeking a rehearing of the issues of McConnell v. FEC, I'm inspired to question whether it might not be feasible to submit an amicus brief to the Court in support of a capacious First Amendment ruling which would overturn McConnell and simultaneously put Obama's censorship agenda on the back foot.

It is clear from their writings that the Framers intended to protect the freedom of ALL public communications, particularly on public issues and especially when critical of the government. In America today, most public communications, by volume and impact, have nothing to do with ink on paper. The electronic media are increasingly the venue where public debate takes place, and where criticism of the government will take place – if possible.
IMHO in the best case, SCOTUS would make the applicability of the First Amendment to modern communications unambiguous:

"Freedom of the press" is not limited to the technology of printing circa 1792. It includes the high speed printing press developed since the 1830s - and it includes telegraphy, telephony, movies, radio, Xerography and television developed much later. And it includes the PC printer and the Internet today, and whatever communication technology may extend those capabilities in as yet unexplored ways in the future. If anyone can use the Internet and put up web sites, everyone (who can afford it) can put up web sites.
"Freedom of the press" is a right of the people, and each of us individually. Under the Constitution the government does not get to elevate some people to privileged status officially recognized as "objective" or any other title of nobility.
Anyone can claim to be objective, but no one may be obliged to defer to any such claim. People who make such claim do not - no matter what the weight of their purses, what printing presses or other communications equipment they may own, or even how many others similarly situated who may be in concert with them in making such claim - attain even to the credibility of witnesses under oath. Let alone to that of the verdict of a jury. They are still only people with no authority over their fellow citizens, and they constitute no part of the government.

Such a finding by SCotUS would be eminently justifiable, and a much easier sell than, for example, the majority opinion in the Heller case. And it would put paid to any pretense that political censorship is permitted to the government under the Constitution.
Could FR submit an amicus brief to that effect, as a practical matter?