Freedom of the Press … Not
for the Press?
©2013 Ross Williams
in a while you’ll run across an idiot liberal still pouting and moping about
the Citizens United ruling. Citizens United was – still is, actually – a
conservative lobbying group which sued the Federal Elections Commission over
the ramifications of the McCain-Feingold Act, which sought to limit the sources
of political campaign spending to individuals and keep political campaigns out
of the hands of deep pocket corporations and lobbyists. Political campaigns work by partisan
propaganda – i.e., advertising – i.e., engaging in public discourse – i.e., free
speech and press. The free speech Citizens
United was prohibited from speaking was called Hillary: The Movie, a hatchet job on the former First Lady MacBeth. This was back in ’08 before the ascendency of
Barry Hussein, when Hillary Clinton was the shoo-in Democratic candidate to go
up against Not-Bush, the Republican.
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United [well after Hillary: The Movie would have helped
Hillary not get elected], struck down much of the McCain-Feingold lunacy, and
earned the idiot wrath of liberals who, as ever, are just as quick with the
torch and pitchfork as the social conservatives they love to claim still live
in the days of torches and pitchforks.
idiot liberal response to the USSC upholding the Constitutional rights of
corporations is “Corporations don’t have Constitutional rights!”
So when …
let’s find a Big Business that
appeals particularly to the liberal side of the spectrum … when Planned
Parenthood is accused by the government of a socially conservative state – for instance,
Texas – of breaking state laws on abortions, Planned Parenthood must submit to
cops seizing all its computers and other records … without a warrant? The 4thAM
is a Constitutional right, after all; Planned Parenthood doesn’t get to enjoy
Parenthood not get to have a jury trial, since the 6thAM is also a Constitutional
right? Is the entire spectrum of
American jurisprudence and its “fair trial” paradigm tossed because Planned
Parenthood is a corporation and corporations don’t have Constitutional
rights? No, of course not. That’s stupid.
that’s not what the issue was with Citizens
United, was it? Citizens United was a First
Amendment matter regarding partisan politics, and which could affect an
election. It’s unfair that well-heeled
corporations get to monopolize the political speech. Particularly when much of this speech must be
that the only Constitutional rights not enjoyed by corporations are … religion?
petitioning government for a redress of grievances? free speech and press?
as stupid, compounded by arbitrary hypocrisy.
Why would a business be protected from warrantless government search and
seizure by the 4thAM, and be guaranteed a fair and speedy trial by the 6thAM,
but not from government interference in saying what it wants by the 1stAM? Just because there’s an election going on?
thing: there’s always an election
going on. Six months into the National
Savior’s second coming, both major parties are already grooming wannabes for
his successorship – in the event he doesn’t get the USSC to interpret the
22ndAM as broadly as they did Article I Section 8 in the Obamacare case; eighteen
months before midterms there’s already major party posturing for that.
There’s Special Elections and primaries, federal, state and local.
arbitrary time limits imposed by McCain-Feingold on this prior restraint are
just that: arbitrary. They can be
changed and they can be fudged. Sixty
days prior to a general election means nothing when there’s YouTube and
DVRs. Thirty days prior to a primary
means nothing when there’s cable television pulling in commercial advertising
from the entire nation … and YouTube, and DVRs.
It would only be a matter of time before the time limits went away, or
bought political speech was totally banned.
If Congress has the authority to impose arbitrary limits on commercially
delivered political speech, they have the authority to outlaw it altogether. Citizens
United declared they don’t have the authority at all.
Reversing Citizens United would ultimately effectively
silence all political speech that wasn’t inarticulately shouted by individuals
on street corners, or hand-slathered on placards. The moment the crowd joined in the chant, the
very second professionally printed picket signs came out… Those are the markers of organization, and
organization implies wealth, and wealth implies paying someone to deliver the political
speech; paid electioneering is verboten according to McCain-Feingold. It’s not “fair” to allow it.
said for or against any government policy can be construed as electioneering –
and it would be in fairly short order, considering how rapidly the government
seizes all opportunities to expand its power.
This was the argument made by the Obama Administration in defending McCain-Feingold
before the USSC against the loyyers for Citizens United.
Which means Papa
John’s Pizza would not be allowed to whine about Obamacare; Hobby Lobby
couldn’t sue over it – lawsuits are public record, and the public is where political speech by monied outfits cannot be. Nor would the ACLU be allowed to sue over
detention at Gitmo, even if they knew what they were talking about.
individuals in this hallucinatory world idiot liberals inhabit possess the
right to say what they want. Michael
Moore can film all the Fahrenheit 9/11’s
he wants because he is an individual [I’m assuming he hasn’t incorporated into
his own production company – if he has, he’s screwed], but he would not be able
to show his film anywhere, because that takes distribution and movie theater conglomerates,
and they are prohibited from making
Moore’s psychotic conspiracy theory available.
O’Keefe would be able to stuff hidden cameras in every orifice he’s got in
order to catch “community organizers” conspiring to assist in human smuggling,
child prostitution and racketeering, along with their standard inner city vote
fraud activities. But getting Fox News
to air the videos? impossible. Even
youtube.com is a corporation and could not show them.
Limbaugh and Keith Olberman can both say what they want, but there would be no
one allowed to broadcast it. …okay, so
there’s an upside to all this.
But the New
York Times – a large corporation – would not have been able to print anything
critical of Bush policies, nor would they have been able to deflect some of the
[deserved] criticism of partisanship by introducing us to Obama’s IRS witch
hunt directed at the Tea Party. Silent
are Fox News, Newscorp, CNN, ABC news, CBS news, and MSNBC. News magazines are winnowed down to their book
review section and are otherwise remade into Soap Opera Digest and People
magazine. Newspapers the nation over are
pared down to boxscores, the comics [sans Doonesbury
and Dilbert], theater listings [which
cannot show Hillary: The Movie, Fahrenheit
9/11, nor The Day After Tomorrow],
classifieds, and Sudoku.
And when you
think about it, a newspaper that is not allowed to exercise its freedom of the
press because doing so might, gorsh, sway
an election sorta defies the purpose of having freedom of the press to
begin with. Y’know? When you think
Liberals? You’re up.
Can you think?