Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision
This ruling by the Supreme Court among other things struck down provisions of federal law prohibiting electioneering by certain organizations. Citizens United was a non-profit that showed a movie negative to Hillary Clinton within 30 days of a primary election.
Some feel this decision is incorrect and harmful to our country. Others feel it was correct and beneficial. I'd like to enumerate the major points, focusing on principles, not legal technicalities. Here are some points to consider:
- The 1st Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any laws abridging the freedom of speech. Several laws including the ones in question violate the Constitution and the Supreme Court was right to strike them down.
- Freedom of speech is clearly not absolute. Since the rule of law is desirable, is there a way to draw a clear line? For example, should the following be protected as free speech
- threatening someone while holding a weapon
- putting inaccurate information on a product label
- The Constitution targets the federal government. Perhaps it should be considered an absolute prohibition for that level of government.
- Corporations are special entities that limit liability to those who control it. Do such entities have freedom of speech when the people who control them aren't legally liable for such communications?
- Anonymous speech should be protected as well since in many societies including ours, the cost of speaking out can be high in inappropriate ways if the speaker is known. This serves to stifle speech unless it can be anonymous. Note that this case upheld discloser requirements.
- Allowing unlimited "speech" creates prosperity because people are spending money on speech.
References