invisible arbiters

Fascinating article from the NY Times concerning an imminent Supreme Court development.  The highest court in the land, it appears, will return from summer vaca a mite early this year to hear a case reargued, itself a rarity in their storied tenure. 

The case in point concerns a documentary, titled “Hillary: The Movie,” produced by Citizens United, a far right advocacy group, predictably railing against Hillary Clinton’s career and character, and strongly opposing her 2008 campaign for president.  In an earlier ruling, a lower court decided that the FEC’s refusal to allow the documentary’s airing on cable video-on-demand accorded closely with the campaign-finance reform regulations set out by McCain-Feingold, the landmark reform bill which – among many other things – restricts the amount of spending allowed by corporations in support of a candidate.

But the issue remains a murky one, because it’s the ACLU, aligned with the NRA and other conservative groups, that’s defending Citizen United’s right to allow distribution of the film.  That’s right, the ACLU.  You can’t say their logic isn’t seamless – they claim that attempts to bar the film’s VOD distribution is a violation of free speech.  And so the issue has become a flashpoint for First Amendment questions.

Deepening the complexity of all this is a hugely pivotal comment made by a government lawyer during the original arguing of the case in March.  At that time, when asked whether the government could - in addition to outlawing the distribution of corporate-sponsored documentaries - expand that precedent to someday outlaw the printing of books for or against a specific candidate, the lawyer asserted that yes, perhaps they could. 

Again, that’s a government lawyer intimating that in the course of restricting large-scale corporate financing of political candidates, Uncle Sam could possibly ban books.  Basically, to protect the First Amendment, the federal government could prevent the publication and dissemination of certain publications financed by corporations in violation of campaign finance restrictions.  Though McCain-Feingold’s purview doesn’t extend past TV and cable advertising into the precincts of publishing or the Internet, the question and its response appear to have jangled the Justices, who now want to examine the topic further.

We believe in free speech, right?  Voltaire, defending one’s right to say what they please, and all that.  But then should corporations as a massive, well-funded entity have the unfettered right to speak with their dollars and cents in defense of a candidate they support?  Should Fox News, for instance, get to finance and distribute whatever propaganda they like and distribute it as a fact-based campaign ad?  Surely not.  But if the government limits such free expression, where is the line drawn?  Can they ban books as well?  Can they burn them?  And even before resorting to such slippery slopes, do we want the government deciding what’s legitimate news and what isn’t?  Or are they, in the age of Obama, the only body fit to do so? 

In this instance, the documentary lambasted a progressive leader, so I’m inclined to think the judgement restricting it was a fair one, but would I feel differently if the documentary instead condemned the crimes of the Bush presidency, and was then restricted?

Are principles like free speech iron-clad, or does my allegiance depend on circumstance?  And if so, does that make me a hypocrite?

A brainy and impactful issue, friends.  In the age of mass-media and corporate predation, who watches over the fragile tenets of our social contract?  This case merits further reading, and we here at A Farther Room will stay tuned.

Advertisement