3 ms·
The plaintiffs in Citizens United, lest we forget, wanted to be permitted to release a movie critical of a presidential candidate during an election. If that is
by 13thLetter 11y ago
The plaintiffs in Citizens United, lest we forget, wanted to be permitted to release a movie critical of a presidential candidate during an election. If that is made illegal again, that strikes me as being quite definitely against the spirit of the First Amendment.
- Bud 11y agoLest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around and run infinite quantities of ads with infinite anonymous funding for said ads, too, to support "Hillary: The Movie", which wasn't actually a movie that they wanted to release, btw, it was actually a big long TV ad. Come on, at least be intellectually honest. They wanted to shadow-fund a TV ad campaign. Clever of you to leave those facts out!
- 13thLetter 11y ago"Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around" Wait, why would it be wrong to bash a politician around again?
- Bud 11y agoOnce again, you conveniently leave out the key part of the comment in question: the source of the funding. Citizens United wasn't about speech. It was about unlimited anonymous money flooding our elections. Nothing is wrong with criticizing a politician. That's obvious. But thanks for the clumsy obfuscation attempt.