Now showing at Supreme Court: 'Hillary: The Movie'

AP ^ | 3/21/09 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

[FourPeas]

WASHINGTON – Months after its debut, "Hillary: The Movie" faces nine of the nation's toughest critics: the Supreme Court.

The justices' review of the slashing documentary financed by longtime critics of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could bring more than just a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad.

[lilylangtree]

The likes of Michael Moore can produce politically attack movies w/o going to SCOTUS. Yet, when a RAT gets a crtique movie about themselves, the issue goes to SCOTUS. What gives? Hypocrisy!

[sickoflibs]

My thought too.

My guess is that the goverenment cant stop movies, under Alito+Roberts they already threw out lawsuits against 3-rd party critical issue ads.

[Brilliant]

The Court should simply throw out all of the legislation regulating campaign speech, as well as campaign funding. It seems pretty clear by now that they made a grievous mistake by holding it Constitutional in the first place.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Court should simply throw out all of the legislation regulating campaign speech, as well as campaign funding. It seems pretty clear by now that they made a grievous mistake by holding it Constitutional in the first place.

Absolutely.

The planted axiom of all such regulation is that journalism is objective and can tell us what is objective and what is not. Without that assumption regulation of political speech would naturally censor journalism - and journalists wouldn't like that at all. But journalists are the ones behind "campaign finance reform" which treats journalists as ubermenchen.

Censorship of everyone but journalists violates Article 1 Section 9,

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States

[elpadre]

“...regulate a politically charged film ...”

No seemed to complain about the many anti-bush propaganda pieces, some of which won awards.

[marlon]

Now it's pretty much a moot point since I don't see Hillary running for another elected office. I would say SOS is pretty much her swan song. One of two scenarios is likely; 1.) she will fail miserably as SOS either of her own accord or merely trying to follow The Ones orders, 2.) The administration some how finds some competency along the way and The One is reelected in a landslide.

For my money I would bet on scenario 1 but in either case Hillary will be in no position to run or challenge The One.

[STARWISE]

Wow .. for AP/Obama to put out this story in such unusual detail is telling. Could be the O’s still have their knives out for her. The snippet covers a lot of ground .. looks very well done. Kudos to David Bossie.

Seeing the scandals revisitied; i.e., Vince Foster, Whitewater, cattle futures, Susan McDougal, etc. etc. etc. ........ the depth, depravity and reach of the Clinton criminal machine, their relentless pursuit of power and elimination of any threats via any means is still stunning.

~~~~

“Without passing judgment on the content of “Hillary,” the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a brief supporting Citizens United, telling the Supreme Court that the media has been critical of presidential candidates since George Washington.

“By criminalizing the distribution of a long-form documentary film, as if it was nothing more than a very long advertisement, the district court has created uncertainty about where the line between traditional news commentary and felonious advocacy lies,” the group said. “

~~~~

MUST SEE ~~

Hillary: The Movie (1 of 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqQ6PYcKseM

[STARWISE]

All the segments of Hillary The Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqQ6PYcKseM

[expatpat]

Methinks you underestimate the Clinton machine. If Obama is in trouble, she could run against him in 2012.

[boughtwithaprice]

Is this a horror or a comedy flick?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[STARWISE]

Legal arguments ~ Cornell University Law School

###

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Docket No. 08-205)
Oral argument: Mar. 24, 2009

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (July 18, 2008)

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205

[STARWISE]

~~BTTT!

[pepperhead]

So “Hillary: The Movie” is first is “The Obama Deception” next? We just can’t have people making documentaries against democrats.

[cubreporter]

I can’t stop laughing. hilllereee clintin the movie? Oh gosh...my sides are aching.

[doug from upland]

I wish we could have gotten this kind of publicity for HILLARY! UNCENSORED - http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hillary-uncensored-the-movie-banned-by-the-media-2008/3945220879

I’m pleased that Bossie’s film had a great segment of Peter Paul taking a polygraph.

[dusttoyou]

Speaking of hitlery, she seems to have vanished after the major diplomatic “gift” screwup with the ruskis.

[STARWISE]

I know ....... don’t give up. The Clinton chapters have yet to fully play out.

[Allegra]

The likes of Michael Moore can produce politically attack movies w/o going to SCOTUS. Yet, when a RAT gets a crtique movie about themselves, the issue goes to SCOTUS. What gives? Hypocrisy!

My sentiments exactly. This is infuriating.