We are #1

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”

Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oney-unlimited

Good one whell. You see, if we lean on you enough, and make you try, you can at least find interesting stuff to C&P.

Poor Justice Stewart, now, got suckered by a false equlivalency. Broadcast media ain't books. Books you have to open them and read them; broadcast is pushed. That makes them totally different in effect. If the Supremes said freedom of speech and of the press mean what they meant when the Constitution was written--vibrations in the air from a human throat, and text on paper--I think we'd be better off. Because if it were seen as constitutional to ban all paid political messages on TV and other electronic media, I'd want it done.