"We can ban books!"... Hope and Change (TM), coming your way!

[FlamingMoe]

Recently the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latest in a series of challenges to the application of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (or, as I've taken to calling it, Johnny McCain's Magical Muzzle). Not surprisingly, the Solicitor General for the new administration argued in favor of the lower court's ruling that Citizens United could be prevented from showing their film, Hillary: The Movie, on an On Demand service shortly before the Democratic primaries.

What is surprising (or not) is the statements made by the Solicitor General in these arguments in response to questions from the bench. On page 27 of the oral arguments transcript (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf), Justice Alito engages Malcolm Stewart (the Solicitor General) in an exchange where Stewart makes some pretty bold statements regarding the administration's view of its authority under BCRA:
JUSTICE ALITO: That's pretty incredible. You think that if -- if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?

MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned. I'm saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its --
At this point Justice Alito interjects with another question, but given the rest of his arguments, we can safely assume Stewart was going to finish with "political action committee." On the next page, Justice Kenndy engages Stewart in another question:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 -- 90-day period -- the 60 -- the 30-day period?

MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.
I sure hope I'm not the only one alarmed by this assertion of power. I've always been against BCRA not only on first amendment grounds, but also because it's at least arguable that the power granted to Congress by the Constitution to regulate federal elections does not extend to regulating the campaigns that precede them. And now the federal government is asserting that it has the power to ban books under this law, provided that they aren't paid for in a certain manner.

If that doesn't sound too onerous, the manner in which such books must be funded should be given a second glance. Federal election law is probably about as complex as the federal tax code, so I resorted to the Wikipedia entry on political action committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee) to see if it explains how they must be funded. Indeed, it does. According to Wikipedia (an important caveat, to be sure) a PAC must be funded by donations from individuals, and any individual cannot donate more than five thousand dollars per year. Corporations are not allowed to donate to PACs. This means a publisher is prohibited from printing and distributing a book that it pays for itself if the book is deemed to be an "electioneering communication." According to Stewart (page 29):
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?

MR. STEWART: That's correct.

Although the law explicitly exempts newspapers from funding requirements, I can't imagine why they should be treated any different from any other publisher which puts words to paper. If corporations can be prohibited from publishing "electioneering communications" under BCRA and it does not run afoul of the Constitution, I fail to see why that provision which exempts newspapers from the funding requirements cannot be removed at some future date with no problems at all.

Book banning, and the theoretical muzzling of the press: this is "Hope and Change"?

[dudalb]

You know , this is a lot like "The Sky Is Falling" threads we had from people on the Left during the Bush Adminsitration.

[Redtail]

You know , this is a lot like "The Sky Is Falling" threads we had from people on the Left during the Bush Adminsitration.

Agreed. Every so often I have to check the calendar to make sure some kind of Trekian space time thing hasn't occurred.

[FlamingMoe]

You're kidding, right? The legal spokesman for the administration is standing in front of the Supreme Court claiming the authority to ban books and you're dismissing this as hysterics?

Are you insane?

[fullflavormenthol]

Fine. So long as I can produce a film showing Sarah Palin hanging out with KKK members and longing for the return of the Nazi party. I mean it is all protected speech right? As a political figure the rules of libel are highly laxed, and it shouldn't matter if I release it before the Republican primaries.

[Upchurch]

You're kidding, right? The legal spokesman for the administration is standing in front of the Supreme Court claiming the authority to ban books and you're dismissing this as hysterics?
uh...
MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned.
hm.

Are you insane?
Are you pulling a Poe here?

[FlamingMoe]

Fine. So long as I can produce a film showing Sarah Palin hanging out with KKK members and longing for the return of the Nazi party. I mean it is all protected speech right? As a political figure the rules of libel are highly laxed, and it shouldn't matter if I release it before the Republican primaries.

So long as you follow the laws regarding reckless disregard of the truth and libel, fire away. That's what freedom of speech and the press is all about.

[FlamingMoe]

uh...

hm.


Are you pulling a Poe here?

I don't know what you mean by "pulling a Poe" but you need to read more than that one statement, because that one statement carries an onerous burden regarding exactly how the books can be published. You basically have to get people to give you money for the purpose of publishing the book, even if it mentions one candidate one time. How does that square with freedom of speech or the press?

[dudalb]

You're kidding, right? The legal spokesman for the administration is standing in front of the Supreme Court claiming the authority to ban books and you're dismissing this as hysterics?

Are you insane?

Well, your avatar suggesting that Obama is a Commie would indicate to a lot of people a certain hysteria is present.....

[dudalb]

And if the Obama administration really did advocate banning books, I would do a 180 degree turn in my generally favorable opinion of them so quick it would make your head swim.

[Upchurch]

I don't know what you mean by "pulling a Poe"
Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law)

but you need to read more than that one statement, because that one statement carries an onerous burden regarding exactly how the books can be published. You basically have to get people to give you money for the purpose of publishing the book, even if it mentions one candidate one time. How does that square with freedom of speech or the press?
I haven't read the transcript, only what you quoted. But you said the law specifically exempts newspapers, right? I say that squares with freedom of press nicely.

You haven't quoted anything about banning books.

[FlamingMoe]

Well, your avatar suggesting that Obama is a Commie would indicate to a lot of people a certain hysteria is present.....
It suggests he is a socialist, which is at least plausible, given his attempt to control nearly every aspect of the banking and health care industries. Regardless, my avatar has no bearing on what the Solicitor General said.

And if the Obama administration really did advocate banning books, I would do a 180 degree turn in my generally favorable opinion of them so quick it would make your head swim.
Which they have now done, and it seems, oddly, my head is not, in fact, swimming.

[FlamingMoe]

Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law)
I don't see the relevance. I'm simply quoting a the lead lawyer for the Obama Administration. Perhaps you're referring to Stewart's arguments, but I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court is not a likely venue for parody.

I haven't read the transcript, only what you quoted. But you said the law specifically exempts newspapers, right? I say that squares with freedom of press nicely.
And, if you read more than that one phrase, you'll note that I also pointed out that the law could be altered with no problems of constitutionality if this decision is upheld. Newspapers are corporations too, you know.

You haven't quoted anything about banning books.
Yeah, I did. In the OP. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.

[Upchurch]

And, if you read more than that one phrase, you'll note that I also pointed out that the law could be altered with no problems of constitutionality if this decision is upheld. Newspapers are corporations too, you know.
So, the law doesn't specifically exempt newspapers? Which is it?


Yeah, I did. In the OP. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.
I see him arguing that Congress could prevent the use of certain kinds of fund (but not all) to publish certain kinds of materials. I also see where he argues that advertising for some kinds of materials could be prohibited within certain time frames.

I see nothing there that prevents the publishing of a book or, as you claim, bans a currently published book.

Perhaps you could be more specific?

[rwguinn]

So, the law doesn't specifically exempt newspapers? Which is it?



I see him arguing that Congress could prevent the use of certain kinds of fund (but not all) to publish certain kinds of materials. I also see where he argues that advertising for some kinds of materials could be prohibited within certain time frames.

I see nothing there that prevents the publishing of a book or, as you claim, bans a currently published book.

Perhaps you could be more specific?
Advertising of published material is ALSO speech...
And you don't have a problem with supressing speech if you disagree with it.
Gotcha. 5x5

[Upchurch]

Advertising of published material is ALSO speech...
And you don't have a problem with supressing speech if you disagree with it.
No. I was addressing the claim that "We can ban books!", which doesn't appear to be there.

There is also the issue of trying to bypass campaign finance laws, which appears to be the flip side of this issue.

[Alferd_Packer]

So what books were banned?

[Brainster]

This is problematic. The position taken by the administration is not that it can ban books. But its position that it can ban advertising for books that contain express advocacy is very troubling. We know that the government has already banned advertising by outside groups that expressly support voting for or against a candidate. Hence we are bombarded with ads that tell us to call Congressman Whitebread and tell him to give the little guy a raise, or to call Congresswoman Kumbayah and tell her to leave our guns alone.

This is of course in support of an attempt to prop up the latest failed effort at campaign finance reform, which is dead anyway.

[jj]

When was this argument made?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 -- 90-day period -- the 60 -- the 30-day period?

MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

==

OMG they are banning books!!!

____

I think you need to revisit either English or Logic 101.

[Upchurch]

This is problematic. The position taken by the administration is not that it can ban books. But its position that it can ban advertising for books that contain express advocacy is very troubling.
Yes. This was my understanding as well. I also agree that it is problematic.

It is not, however, what was being described in the OP.

[GreyICE]

This is problematic. The position taken by the administration is not that it can ban books. But its position that it can ban advertising for books that contain express advocacy is very troubling. We know that the government has already banned advertising by outside groups that expressly support voting for or against a candidate. Hence we are bombarded with ads that tell us to call Congressman Whitebread and tell him to give the little guy a raise, or to call Congresswoman Kumbayah and tell her to leave our guns alone.

This is of course in support of an attempt to prop up the latest failed effort at campaign finance reform, which is dead anyway.
"Here's a 5 course seafood dinner!"

"What the hell? This isn't even seafood, and it's only one course."

"Sir, I protest! This is the finest of steaks!"

"It's not even seafood! You said there was a 5 course seafood dinner!"

"Sir! You are a villain and a liar! How dare you insult our steak! How dare you insult our chef!"



Start a new thread, Branster, because you're arguing a stupid non-sequiter, and nobody is left that's dumb enough to fall for it. Oh and the cute business of having a patsy do this and you posting something 'reasonable' but still utterly nonsensical, so your position looks reasonable in comparison to the frothing at the mouth lunacy? Yeah, we're all quite done with it, your opinion fails on its own merits.

[Brainster]

Yes. This was my understanding as well. I also agree that it is problematic.

It is not, however, what was being described in the OP.

Well, the choice is whether we talk about the nutty OP at this point or the legitimate problem. If it's the former it belongs in the conspiracy theories forum.

[FlamingMoe]

So, the law doesn't specifically exempt newspapers? Which is it?
Do you even read? Or are you just ignorant of how our government makes laws? See we have this thing called "Congress" and they make up stuff called "laws." But once one of these "laws" are passed "Congress" can go back and make changes to the "laws." So, you can see (I hope) how one of these "laws" that exempts corporations as far as their newspapers are concerned can be revisited and changed.

I don't think I can paint a picture for you, so that's about as simple as I can make it.

I see him arguing that Congress could prevent the use of certain kinds of fund (but not all) to publish certain kinds of materials. I also see where he argues that advertising for some kinds of materials could be prohibited within certain time frames.

I see nothing there that prevents the publishing of a book or, as you claim, bans a currently published book.

Perhaps you could be more specific?
The restrictions placed on the funds that can be used for such a book are onerous. As I stated previously, you have to get people to donate (and no one can donate more than $5000 in a year to you) money to you and it's only those funds you can use in publishing your book.

If all you see is that advertising for a book can be prohibited, then you clearly either didn't read or didn't understant the words that came from his mouth. If you don't get people to pay for you to publish your book (because it's illegal to do it yourself) then you can't do it for three months out of the year, according to Stewart. There's your "certain time frame": one of every four days.

Finally, I never claimed he explicitly stated the authority to "ban a currently published book." However, I see no reason why such a claim would be out of reach for Stewart, since he already claims the authority to prohibit publishing of covered books under the Act so why would it make any difference if the book is about to start up its first run or its fifteenth?

And if you don't see anything that prevents the publishing of a book, then you really need remedial English lessons because it's right there in front of your face, plain as day.

[FlamingMoe]

So what books were banned?

None, so far as I know. But if the administration claimed the authority to imprisons anyone it wanted for as long as it wanted for no reason at all, would you still sit there and smugly ask which people were imprisoned or would you be outraged that they even considered such an act to be within their authority, whether or not they had acutally done it yet?

[FlamingMoe]

==

OMG they are banning books!!!

____

I think you need to revisit either English or Logic 101.

Using the fact that they only claim the authority to ban certain books at certain times as evidence that my logic is flawed can't even be described as minutely rational.

[rwguinn]

Using the fact that they only claim the authority to ban certain books at certain times as evidence that my logic is flawed can't even be described as minutely rational.
While the OP is somewhat misleading, Upchurch and the others have focused on the minutae, rather than the actual issue, simply because they can't refute the precedent that such a thing might establish.
It also helps if you dis their hero...

[applecorped]

Oh and the cute business of having a patsy do this and you posting something 'reasonable' .


Proof? That's quite an accusation.

[themusicteacher]

[QUOTE=FlamingMoe;4606189]It suggests he is a socialist, which is at least plausible, given his attempt to control nearly every aspect of the banking and health care industries. Regardless, my avatar has no bearing on what the Solicitor General said.
QUOTE]

You should probably go talk to an actual socialist and then make a determination as to whether or not Obama is one. The leader of the American Socialist Party has said that Obama is not a socialist, not even close. Trying to fix a horribly broken system is not tantamount to "conrtol(ing) every aspect" of it vis a vis a permanent government takeover.

Anywho...

Isn't this case basically about people who write smear books during campaign season that amount to shilling for one side or the other? I'm thinking specifically of Jerome Corsi's "book." The issue is whether or not this type of book crosses the line into campaigning for one side. In that instance, hasn't the author become a campaigner? I'm not even sure the complaint is about banning the books entirely or ensuring that people don't get unlawful campaigning during the election cycle. I'm thinking you're being just as alarmist as those on the left were when Bush was suspending civil liberties. But, hey, we've all got axes to grind...

[billydkid]

Yeah, it's all hysterics until it involves specifically the infringements of your rights or things that are particularly important to you. I'm not a huge advocate of slippery slope arguments and the argument here is not the slippery slope. It is the issue of a basic principles being set aside and if you set them aside in cases that seem "reasonable" to you there is nothing stopping someone with different values from yours setting them aside in ways that are unreasonable in your view. It seems to me that way too many people simply do not grasp the concept of "principle" and why it is fundamentally important. This is why adherence to the Constitution and the intentions with which it was written is so critically important. By failing to do so you make the quantum leap from the rule of law to the rule of men and nothing is more important than the rule of law in any society which has any hope of being just.

[INRM]

Banning books is a very dangerous idea.

[Upchurch]

While the OP is somewhat misleading, Upchurch and the others have focused on the minutae, rather than the actual issue, simply because they can't refute the precedent that such a thing might establish.
It also helps if you dis their hero...
That "minutiae" also goes by the names "details" and "context", without which you get things like a misleading, or downright dishonest, OP.

As you may note, I already agreed that the actual issue is problematic so you can take your lame "dis their hero" BS and {rule 10}. If you want to discuss the issue, great. Leave the GOTCHA garbage at home.

None, so far as I know. But if the administration claimed the authority to imprisons anyone it wanted for as long as it wanted for no reason at all, would you still sit there and smugly ask which people were imprisoned or would you be outraged that they even considered such an act to be within their authority, whether or not they had acutally done it yet?
Hard to say, since the only example of this kind of argument being made in my memory was after they had actually done it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)).

The trouble, is that this situation isn't as black and white as you are presenting it to be.

[FlamingMoe]

While the OP is somewhat misleading

No, it isn't. The title states the administration claims the power to ban books, the text says the same, and there are quotes from oral arguments where Stewart says that's exactly what they're claiming. Whether it's for a "short time" or forever, and whether it's an outright ban or the financial equivalent of requiring a tightrope walk over Niagara is insignificant.

"We can ban books for three months out of the year unless the publisher can convince a whole lot of people to send them money to finance what is otherwise a normal business operation. Oh, and any book that mention even one candidate one time is covered by this restriction."

Yeah, that guy's a real stickler for that whole "Congress shall make no law..." triviality, isn't he?

[FlamingMoe]

That "minutiae" also goes by the names "details" and "context", without which you get things like a misleading, or downright dishonest, OP.
Well it's a good thing we do not have that here, isn't it?

Hard to say, since the only example of this kind of argument being made in my memory was after they had actually done it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)).
Well you can think about what you'd say if they actually came out and said they had the authority to do it beforehand, can't you? You're at least a little bit imaginative, right?

The trouble, is that this situation isn't as black and white as you are presenting it to be.
I'm eager to learn how you think I overstated their claims, given that I simply restated the claims they already made.

[FlamingMoe]

...{Off-topic rant omitted}...

Isn't this case basically about people who write smear books during campaign season that amount to shilling for one side or the other? I'm thinking specifically of Jerome Corsi's "book." The issue is whether or not this type of book crosses the line into campaigning for one side. In that instance, hasn't the author become a campaigner? I'm not even sure the complaint is about banning the books entirely or ensuring that people don't get unlawful campaigning during the election cycle. I'm thinking you're being just as alarmist as those on the left were when Bush was suspending civil liberties. But, hey, we've all got axes to grind...
Who cares if it "crosses the line" into campaigning territory? And yes, this case is precisely about people doing "unlawful" campaigning -- that's why they're trying to get the law overturned at the Supreme Court. The curious part about the arguments is that the government is claiming the authority to enforce that law by banning books. So no, it's not about book banning per se, it's just a sidetrack they got on at orals.

What does it matter if an author has "become a campaigner" by trying to publish the book? Isn't that what freedom of speech (and the press) is all about? Being able to voice your opinions freely about government? I can't grasp the notion that the most depraved porn flick is speech worthy of the highest protection, but a criticism or plug for someone in our elected bodies of representation is not. (Not that I have something against porn, but shouldn't a billboard saying Congressman X would be a better choice in the upcoming election have at least as much protection as photos of some chick getting nailed in the ass in Hustler? Really, now...)

When Bush actually was violating civil liberties, I was just as pissed about that as I am about this. My axe to grind is the Constitution and its preservation. Apparently some people just don't care, really...

[Dorian Gray]

None, so far as I know. But if the administration claimed the authority to imprisons anyone it wanted for as long as it wanted for no reason at all, would you still sit there and smugly ask which people were imprisoned or would you be outraged that they even considered such an act to be within their authority, whether or not they had acutally done it yet?Why don't you take your own advice and look up the threads that exist on that very subject on this very forum? Hint: start with January 2009 and work backwards.

No one is suggesting that books can be banned (other than you). Only that books and movies that are derogatory towards a candidate or that praise another candidate cannot be funded by a corporation a certain amount of time before an election is held. After that, publish away. If the argument becomes that after the election will be too late, then you've justified the law. If it isn't too late, then who cares.

[Dorian Gray]

Who cares if it "crosses the line" into campaigning territory? And yes, this case is precisely about people doing "unlawful" campaigning -- that's why they're trying to get the law overturned at the Supreme Court. The curious part about the arguments is that the government is claiming the authority to enforce that law by banning books. So no, it's not about book banning per se, it's just a sidetrack they got on at orals.

What does it matter if an author has "become a campaigner" by trying to publish the book? Isn't that what freedom of speech (and the press) is all about? Being able to voice your opinions freely about government? I can't grasp the notion that the most depraved porn flick is speech worthy of the highest protection, but a criticism or plug for someone in our elected bodies of representation is not. (Not that I have something against porn, but shouldn't a billboard saying Congressman X would be a better choice in the upcoming election have at least as much protection as photos of some chick getting nailed in the ass in Hustler? Really, now...)

When Bush actually was violating civil liberties, I was just as pissed about that as I am about this. My axe to grind is the Constitution and its preservation. Apparently some people just don't care, really...
You. Are. Missing. The. Point.
Microsoft and Wal-Mart in 2012 put billions of dollars into a book/movie/multimedia experience to promote Candidate X. Who can stand against that? Obama didn't raise that much money. Public funds are only $75M. See the point now? See the reason for the law? It's so corporations cannot effectively buy their candidate's way into office, skirting the campaign contribution laws, etc.

The way I see it, it's more a violation of my rights to allow them to do it. And ass porn doesn't affect my life the same way that elected officials do - I don't know, maybe it does for you.

[WildCat]

If the argument becomes that after the election will be too late, then you've justified the law. If it isn't too late, then who cares.
"Justified the law"? No, you've just demonstrated why it will not pass Constitutional muster. Political speech cannot be suppressed, and it is shocking that you seem to think it can or should be.

[fullflavormenthol]

So long as you follow the laws regarding reckless disregard of the truth and libel, fire away. That's what freedom of speech and the press is all about.
Oh what I described is 100% legal because she is a politician.

[MattusMaximus]

You know , this is a lot like "The Sky Is Falling" threads we had from people on the Left during the Bush Adminsitration.

It was way stupid then, and I took a good number of my fellow Democrats to task for spewing CT-woo-mongering nonsense back in those days...

... and it is way stupid now, as well. I just hope there are some reasonable people in the GOP who are going to try dragging their nutters back to some semblance of sanity.

But then I took a look at the Glenn Beck Tea Party thread... bad idea :faint:

[Harpyja]

Actually, pornography doesn't receive the highest accordance of free speech. I believe it's rational basis, although I admit that over my Spring Break my Constitutional Law has gotten rusty. In all honesty, I'd prefer not to have the word show up in my search results, as I'm still a minor, younger children have access to my search results, and God knows what I'm going to have to weave through to get to my actual answer. Besides, my Law book is already packed away.

Dorian Gray puts the answer perfectly. The reason that there is a cap on campaign funds is to keep the playing field somewhat level. That way, a candidate with more access to funding doesn't completely overwhelm the opposition. The books are not permanently banned. My impression is that books that expressly promote one candidate over the other are not allowed to be published during the campaign season. This way, candidates cannot dodge around the campaign contribution limitations (more than they do now). Supreme Court cases have already been decided on this issue long before Obama was in office.

[Dorian Gray]

"Justified the law"? No, you've just demonstrated why it will not pass Constitutional muster. Political speech cannot be suppressed, and it is shocking that you seem to think it can or should be.Yes, in this case I think it should be, for the reasons I've clearly given and you've clearly overlooked. If the timing of political speech is a critical factor, and it is financed by a corporation, then it is a violation of existing law, and it is shocking that you think laws should be violated on a whim.

What will you argue next - that not being allowed to vote as often as I like for a candidate is a violation of my free speech? Come on.

[WildCat]

Yes, in this case I think it should be, for the reasons I've clearly given and you've clearly overlooked. If the timing of political speech is a critical factor, and it is financed by a corporation, then it is a violation of existing law, and it is shocking that you think laws should be violated on a whim.
Why should it matter whether it is financed by a corporation or by a large PAC or a 527 group? What about films like Fahrenheit 9/11? Corporations don't actually vote, it's still voters who will decide elections.

What will you argue next - that not being allowed to vote as often as I like for a candidate is a violation of my free speech? Come on.
The only thing I'm arguing is that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

If you don't like that start a campaign to repeal the 1st Amendment.

[FlamingMoe]

Yes, in this case I think it should be, for the reasons I've clearly given and you've clearly overlooked. If the timing of political speech is a critical factor, and it is financed by a corporation, then it is a violation of existing law, and it is shocking that you think laws should be violated on a whim.

What will you argue next - that not being allowed to vote as often as I like for a candidate is a violation of my free speech? Come on.

What kind of silliness is this? Trying to get the law overturned by challenging it in the courts is not violating the law.

[ZirconBlue]

I can't grasp the notion that the most depraved porn flick is speech worthy of the highest protection, but a criticism or plug for someone in our elected bodies of representation is not. (Not that I have something against porn, but shouldn't a billboard saying Congressman X would be a better choice in the upcoming election have at least as much protection as photos of some chick getting nailed in the ass in Hustler? Really, now...)


Congress vs. The Porn Industry: One is a veritable den of iniquity, participation in which is one step removed from outright prostitution. The other produces pornography.

[leftysergeant]

Using the fact that they only claim the authority to ban certain books at certain times as evidence that my logic is flawed can't even be described as minutely rational.

There is no language in any of the arguments by the government that advocates the banning of books.

The defendants were slapped down for making an illegal in-kind campaign contribution by running a smear ad disguised as an advertising for a book.

Do learn to read for comprehension.

[Beerina]

You're kidding, right? The legal spokesman for the administration is standing in front of the Supreme Court claiming the authority to ban books and you're dismissing this as hysterics?

Are you insane?


An upmod system! An upmod system! My kingdom for an upmod system!

You other two guy need to take a deep breath tonight and then take a good look in the mirror about your knee-jerk reactionism.

[Beerina]

I don't know what you mean by "pulling a Poe" but you need to read more than that one statement, because that one statement carries an onerous burden regarding exactly how the books can be published. You basically have to get people to give you money for the purpose of publishing the book, even if it mentions one candidate one time. How does that square with freedom of speech or the press?


Basically, people with power in Congress are sick of having to counteract advocacy campaigns against them, and are using what they hope are legal tricks to silence those who threaten their power, such as forbidding certain types of corporate money from political advocacy.

This all started under McCain, too, keep in mind. This is why he's anything but conservative except in the wrong way -- pandering to the religious right. I'm glad he lost the election, and this guy in front of the SC needs to feel ashamed of himself.

[INRM]

I can't believe there are people who are actually defending this. This is a very dangerous precedent -- the government can ban books!??

Who says they won't eventually expand this into other areas?

[Upchurch]

I can't believe there are people who are actually defending this. This is a very dangerous precedent -- the government can ban books!??
What is being argued is that the language "we can ban books" (in any form) is not actually present. No one is defending the banning of books.

[quixotecoyote]

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Electio n_Commission

If the description at scotus wiki is correct this is a tempest in a teapot.

Conservative group tried to run a 90 minute "movie" on 3 networks and video on demand that was actually a prolonged anti-Hilary political ad. If you grant that political advertisement and spending can be limited, then this is a no-brainer.

If you don't, then the sky has been falling for years and this is one more chunk of the same atmosphere hitting you upside the head.