June 27, 2006
Free Speech ContradictionMichael Barone makes a good point.
[Justice] Thomas argues that the 1976 precedent of Buckley v. Valeo, to the extent it allows contribution limits, is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. But Thomas didn't have five votes, and so our First Amendment jurisprudence still stands for the proposition that the Founding Fathers intended to give blanket protection to nude dancing, student armbands, and flag burning—but not to political speech.Indeed, in the Texas v. Johnson and McConnell v. FEC rulings, the Supreme Court has taken an astonishing, and ludicrous, stance on freedom of speech. Our robed masters have determined that flag-burning is sacrosanct (though, I personally do not favor the newly proposed Amendment to forbid it), but citizens who band together to run an ad criticizing a politician too close to an election (presumably, the most appropriate time to run such ads) are considered criminals. Does this make sense?
Posted by Jonathan R. on June 27, 2006 05:29 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/3817
Comments
"Does this make sense?"
No. Justice Thomas is correct.
Posted by: Freedom1 ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2006 05:43 PM
Post a comment
