PDA

View Full Version : Judges: Anti-Hillary movie is a political ad banned by McCain-Finegold



Little-Acorn
01-10-2008, 12:47 PM
The bad news: Several judges seem to think that the new movie "Hillary, the Movie" constitutes political advertising, and so must be banned before an election according to John McCain's so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" act.

The worse news: Judges now have the power to decide what we can say and when we can say it, particularly in regards to political speech, a flat violation of the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court said they could, several years ago, in a decision excoriated by four USSC justices as the "most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War" and other such descriptions.

The reason the five liberal justices gave judges that power? Because some of that politicial speech might offend somebody at some time.

----------------------------------

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U35BSG0&show_article=1

Judges: Anti-Clinton Film Is Advertising

Jan 10 12:26 PM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues "Hillary: The Movie" and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.

Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue- oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.

"What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.

"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist," Bopp replied. "That is an issue."

"Which has nothing to do with her campaign?" U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.

"Not specifically, no," Bopp replied.

"Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"

Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."

"Oh, that's ridic...," Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.


Rest at Link

5stringJeff
01-10-2008, 06:14 PM
The fact that judges are deciding what kind of political speech is proper and what political speech is improper is outrageous and against every notion of liberty and freedom. THIS is why I'll never vote for John McCain: this legislation was sponsored by him over the course of several sessions of Congress. It is John McCain's fault that Americans' free speech has been abridged. Shame on John McCain for this atrocious legislation! :mad: And a dishonorable mention to George Bush for signing this legislation and the Supreme Court for upholding it! :mad: :mad:

LiberalNation
01-10-2008, 06:32 PM
Well free speech has never been absolute. We have laws against slander and all that.

Dilloduck
01-10-2008, 06:35 PM
Well free speech has never been absolute. We have laws against slander and all that.

Have you been sued by Bush recently ? :laugh2:

5stringJeff
01-10-2008, 06:35 PM
Well free speech has never been absolute. We have laws against slander and all that.

In the eyes of the Founders, political speech was the most important, and should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Slander is not protected because it causes actual harm. Even so, to prove slander, you have to prove that someone said something, and then that you were caused to be harmed by that speech. It's a tough standard.

avatar4321
01-10-2008, 07:27 PM
This is exactly why I dont like John McCain.

on the plus side, this could finally be egregious enough to get that damn law declared unconstitutional.

Yurt
01-10-2008, 07:41 PM
Well free speech has never been absolute. We have laws against slander and all that.

without using the mcnoob act, please show us how this movie violates the 1st amendment free speech laws. i'll give you a head start, use strict scrutiny....

PostmodernProphet
01-10-2008, 09:14 PM
without using the mcnoob act, please show us how this movie violates the 1st amendment free speech laws. i'll give you a head start, use strict scrutiny....

ummm, actually, that would be the wrong test...the question is whether the act violates 1st amendment free speech protections....obviously nobody is going to claim the movie violates it......

Yurt
01-11-2008, 01:32 AM
ummm, actually, that would be the wrong test...the question is whether the act violates 1st amendment free speech protections....obviously nobody is going to claim the movie violates it......
.....

Yurt
01-11-2008, 01:40 AM
ummm, actually, that would be the wrong test...the question is whether the act violates 1st amendment free speech protections....obviously nobody is going to claim the movie violates it......

obviously people have, hence the suit.

i mentioned the act, go re read my post. "without" the mcain act.............

i am not talking about the act, but solely about how this movie could be shut down solely on 1st amendment grounds.


please show us how this movie violates the 1st amendment free speech laws. i'll give you a head start, use strict scrutiny....

i know the act violates free speech, ok?

Yurt
01-11-2008, 01:42 AM
edit:

what is a violation of free speech, is at this point left with the judiciary branch, still does not take away from my point.

PostmodernProphet
01-11-2008, 05:36 AM
obviously people have, hence the suit.

??....no, the law suit didn't claim the movie violated the 1st amendment, they said it violated the McCain act....the defense was raised that the act violated the 1st amendment, but nobody ever claimed the movie did.......