Thread: So much for freedom of Speech

“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.�

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law.


The justices, in an order Friday, said they will review a lower court ruling that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. The movie was made by Citizens United.

A three-judge court in Washington said the group had to attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors in order to run ads promoting the movie.
James Bopp, Jr., the group's lawyer, has devised repeated legal challenges to the 2003 campaign finance law that sets limits on corporate- and union-funded political ads that run close to elections and identify candidates.

Although the Supreme Court invalidated those restrictions for ads that are not express advocacy, the judges who ruled in this case said the movie could be seen as nothing but anti-Clinton and intended to influence voters.

It was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," the judges said in a unanimous ruling. The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.

High Court to hear appeal over anti-Clinton movie

That is exactly what freedom of speech is al about.

There are limits to freedom of speech, and slander with attempt to defame is one of them.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

There are limits to freedom of speech, and slander with attempt to defame is one of them.

Where does it say anything about slander???

Originally Posted by Ausinus

There are limits to freedom of speech, and slander with attempt to defame is one of them.

But in dealing with people who are in the public's eye, some constantly, (as in entertainers and politicians and the otherwise rich & famous), using the word slander to describe opinions and actual facts, is a slippery slope.

What the handlers, agents, lawyers and spinners would like to call slander because they want to protect their client's "image" and "standing" in the country, the world, the state, the news, and whatnot, is probably closer to the truth than not.

Stinger is just upset because these scheming anti Hillary people have to actualy obey the law.

You don't have free speech on Political Hotwire...I can't call Stinger whatever I want because it's a personal insult.

Why don't you start a thread titled "So much for free speech" here on PH?

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Where does it say anything about slander???

It has been decided by judicial precedent - if a falsity or a fallacy is portrayed as true in such a manner as to be capable of convincing a reasonable person of its verity, then it is not covered by freedom of speech.

I did a little research to see how this law applied to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911." It turns out that his movie was subject to the same rules, and Moore followed them. So before anyone starts frothing, there was no double standard.

Among other things, the FEC rules state that television commercials for the movie (aired close to the election) could not include images of the candidate running for office, nor could the candidate's name be mentioned. For Moore's movie, this was relatively easy.

However, in this instance, the producers named the movie "Hillary: The Movie" making it impossible to develop a television commercial that avoided mentioning the candidate's name.

But since the election is over (and technically was over when Sen. Obama won the Democratic primary), there should be no such obstacle.

Originally Posted by Common Sense Craig

But in dealing with people who are in the public's eye, some constantly, (as in entertainers and politicians and the otherwise rich & famous), using the word slander to describe opinions and actual facts, is a slippery slope.

What the handlers, agents, lawyers and spinners would like to call slander because they want to protect their client's "image" and "standing" in the country, the world, the state, the news, and whatnot, is probably closer to the truth than not.

Like I said, if something false is portrayed as true in a manner which it is capable of convincing a reasonable person tthen it is not permissible.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

There are limits to freedom of speech, and slander with attempt to defame is one of them.

And how do those apply here, political speech?

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Stinger is just upset because these scheming anti Hillary people have to actualy obey the law.

No I'm upset about the law, learn the distinction.

You don't have free speech on Political Hotwire...I can't call Stinger whatever I want because it's a personal insult.

And learn the difference between a privately owned forum and public speech.

What if the government decided to make a law which said you could not critize the President on the internet in a political debate forum?