Skip to main content

View Diary: Should we amend the US Constitution? Justice Stevens thinks so, incl. 2nd Amendment (new book) (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Books, movies, magazines, tv (10+ / 0-)

    are not generally "the press" (with the possible exception of tv news shows).    "Freedom of the press" refers to journalism and news outlets.  

    Under this proposal, Stevens' book -- which was published by Little, Brown & Co. -- would not be protected speech.

    After all, the Citizens United case was about the content of a movie that was published by a corporation.  Would you allow government regulation of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit  911? It was distributed by corporations.    This proposal would allow the government to regulate -- and ban, if they wanted -- any movie that those in power did not like.  

    •  Books are absolutely a product of the press. (5+ / 0-)

      And movies and television are actual people speaking.

      I don't have a problem with the original premise of Citizen's United, that making a movie is an exercise in free speech. It is the justices using the case to make a ruling that goes far beyond this premise, allowing unlimited spending by corporations for political purposes under the presumption that corporations share the rights of actual people, and money is equivalent to speech, that has made this an issue.

      •  eMails are not really "Mail" either (0+ / 0-)

        Lawyers always seem to know when the spirit or the facts of law should be applied. Or else pound on the table.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site