Author Topic: Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie  (Read 1214 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie
« on: March 24, 2009, 05:22:43 PM »
Quote
Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season.
 
One justice warned that the future of the nation's campaign finance law could ride on their decision on whether the anti-Clinton movie was journalism or a political attack ad.

Government lawyers argued that conservative group Citizens United's 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie" is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws.

*snip*

Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary "Hillary: The Movie" to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

*snip*

But Citizens United's attempts to pay for the movie to be shown on video-on-demand—where people request "Hillary: The Movie" be shown on the televisions in their home—could bring heightened First Amendment scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it, Scalia said.

MORE

Wonder what Uncle Zer0 thinks about this.   :fuelfire:



If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Duke Nukum

  • Assistant Chair of the Committee on Neighborhood Services
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • Reputation: +561/-202
  • O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
Re: Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2009, 05:50:34 PM »
Quote
Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates.

But former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for Citizens United, said violation of campaign finance laws are a felony that could bring prison time. "What they mean by prohibit is that they will put you in jail," Olson said.

Chilling.
“A man who has been through bitter experiences and travelled far enjoys even his sufferings after a time”
― Homer, The Odyssey