4 ms·

I have been thinking of another aspect of this case. One that obviates net neutrality, IMO. The ruling against McCain-Feingold states that government does not

I have been thinking of another aspect of this case. One that obviates net neutrality, IMO. The ruling against McCain-Feingold states that government does not have the power to create penalties (criminal or civil) that limit speech. In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court ruled that it was enough to base its ruling simply on the assumption that the law "may" limit speech, without proof that it actually has. I think this is reasonable. Here is where it unravels: There are other laws the government has passed that provide penalties as McCain-Feingold does. A key example is broadcast spectrum sales. The FCC has sold rights of public spectrum and provides criminal penalties for infringing on the use of that spectrum. This of course creates third party arbiters of content and has provably limited speech. Case in point: next week's SuperBowl will show an ad against abortion but has refused an ad for a gay dating site. Political ads are refused all the time by major broadcasters when they do not suit the content arbiters. I think the duplicity of the court lies in the cases they refuse to hear that should apply the same logic as this ruling. Does anyone know of examples of such cases that have been refused or ruled against?

hga 17y ago
I think you misunderstand what was struck down in McCain-Feingold: an explicit ban on non-media corporate speech advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in the 1-2 months before a Federal election (1 for a primary, 2 for a general).
- jhancock 17y ago
  What was struck down was Congress passing a law that restricts speech and the rational as published by the court clearly shows this is why the law was struck down. McCain-Feingold does restrict speech and does so in fairly arbitrary manners. I like the fact that McCain-Feingold attempted to "do something" but the court has ruled that how it does it is unlawful per the 1st amendment. 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is critical when we talk about free speech in the U.S. to understand that this freedom is limited to Congress not making laws restricting speech. It does not mean others cannot limit speech. For example, the case with "Bong Hits for Jesus", the court did not have to rule in the same manner as Congress did not pass a law limiting this speech, but rather a specific school made the decision on controlling student behavior.
  - hga 17y ago
    Errr, "this freedom is limited to Congress not making laws restricting speech" was true prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. That enforces it on the states, and Morse v. Frederick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Hits_for_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Hits_for_Jesus) was based on previous "school speech" jurisprudence. Schools are a special place and special restrictions are allowed in them, but certainly not total bans on political speech.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      Sorry if I muddied the debate by bringing in other cases. I was attempting to contrast the decision which perhaps was not necessary. The decision against McCain-Feingold was strictly a 1st amendment one and the 14th does not effect the decision, at least not in what I've read about the ruling.
      - hga 17y ago
        Actually the 14th comes into play, not WRT McCain-Feingold but in that the Supremes explicitly reversed Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which was about a state law. I've read that 28 or so states have laws which will come under wilting scrutiny now.

hga 17y ago

I think you misunderstand what was struck down in McCain-Feingold: an explicit ban on non-media corporate speech advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in the 1-2 months before a Federal election (1 for a primary, 2 for a general).

jhancock 17y ago
What was struck down was Congress passing a law that restricts speech and the rational as published by the court clearly shows this is why the law was struck down. McCain-Feingold does restrict speech and does so in fairly arbitrary manners. I like the fact that McCain-Feingold attempted to "do something" but the court has ruled that how it does it is unlawful per the 1st amendment. 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is critical when we talk about free speech in the U.S. to understand that this freedom is limited to Congress not making laws restricting speech. It does not mean others cannot limit speech. For example, the case with "Bong Hits for Jesus", the court did not have to rule in the same manner as Congress did not pass a law limiting this speech, but rather a specific school made the decision on controlling student behavior.
- hga 17y ago
  Errr, "this freedom is limited to Congress not making laws restricting speech" was true prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. That enforces it on the states, and Morse v. Frederick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Hits_for_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Hits_for_Jesus) was based on previous "school speech" jurisprudence. Schools are a special place and special restrictions are allowed in them, but certainly not total bans on political speech.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    Sorry if I muddied the debate by bringing in other cases. I was attempting to contrast the decision which perhaps was not necessary. The decision against McCain-Feingold was strictly a 1st amendment one and the 14th does not effect the decision, at least not in what I've read about the ruling.
    - hga 17y ago
      Actually the 14th comes into play, not WRT McCain-Feingold but in that the Supremes explicitly reversed Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which was about a state law. I've read that 28 or so states have laws which will come under wilting scrutiny now.