Freedom of Speech does not exist to further the political ends Mr. Lipsak is sympathetic to. It is the fulfillment in Law of the Free Conscience of Man: that n

Freedom of Speech does not exist to further the political ends Mr. Lipsak is sympathetic to. It is the fulfillment in Law of the Free Conscience of Man: that no man should have to answer in shackles for speaking his mind; that for his words he should fear nothing but the equally Free Judgment of his peers. There is ample and settled case law in the US that guarantees nearly unlimited freedom of expression to individuals and activists. But for over a half-century now, the state has exerted its power over realms once ruled by the freely-entered private contract. At its best, the state can be defender of the peace, guarantor of stability, and investor in tomorrow. But at its worst, it enviously confiscates wealth, stifles innovation, and denies freedom. Who but the impartial judge is suited to arbitrate between the democratic legitimacy of the state, and the human autonomy of the individual? Between guardianship and freedom? Criticism of the the Citizens United decision overlooks the specifics of the case, which are actually very illustrative of the danger of making exceptions to Freedom of Speech. Citizens United's violation was making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton within 1 month of a primary. A new campaign finance law prohibited private "electioneering" featuring candidates within one month of primaries and two months of general elections. The Federal Elections Commission believed that Citizens United was in violation and sought a gag order prohibiting further marketing of the film. Fast forward to the Supreme Court's decision: Citizens United won on First Amendment grounds. The under-told angle of this story is that the government had passed a law shielding itself from criticism when the freedom to criticize is most precious: leading up to an election! Picture a possible scenario if the court had ruled for the FEC: if Citizens United had refused to cease marketing the film, the FEC would have been granted a court order. If Citizens United still refused to stop spreading their film, the executive officers would have been imprisoned for contempt of court. The Supreme Court would have been foolish to abandon a great tradition of free speech and allow people to be punished for spreading a political message. An aside: as a journalist working for a very wealthy corporation that sometimes acts more like a political campaign than a newspaper, Mr. Lipsak should know better than to so quickly dismiss the free speech of "corporations" as lesser than that of people.