Posted by
arandomguy on Monday, June 25, 2007 3:56:59 PM
We all know about McCain Feingold - you know, the piece of legislation that may be one of the greatest threats to free speech since the Alien and Sedition acts of the 1790's. It was an abomination - as so much legislation is these days - when it was passed, and it remains one today.
Luckily, the supreme court on a partisan vote - 5 to 4 - decided that certain portions of McCain Feingold at least, are Unconstitutional (as some <ahem> have been arguing from the very beginning). The case that went to the court, concerned Wisconsin Right-To-Life, an anti-abortion group alleging that it's First Amendment rights were violated.
The Majority opinion, written by John Roberts, very clearly stated that it was indeed unconstitutional to prevent people from running political advertisements a certain (arbitrary) number of days before an election - that there was no compelling government interest for such infringements on free speech.
I would go one step further - though unfortunately, the court has not - and say that McCain Feingold itself is unconstitutional. It tries to limit free speech, something that I do not think should
ever be infringed upon by the government, unless a persons rights are imminently in danger (If you stand in front of somebody with a knife, and tell them you are going to kill them, you are putting the right of that person's life in danger, and so these kinds of threats would be limited).
I WOULD however argue, that the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote - "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" is stupid. When you purchase a ticket to a movie theatre, you are entering into a contract between yourself and the owner of the theatre. Your contract allows you to watch a movie on the owners property - to use their property for something you desire. Yet that contract does
not give you the right to disrupt the movie. So, I see yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, as a violation of contract law, but NOT as a reason for the government to infringe upon free speech - let the owner of the theatre sue, or let the other patrons sue, who were sent into emotional anguish.
Alternatively, if the OWNER of the theatre yells "fire," then they are breaking their end of the contract - to allow you to safely use their property to watch a movie without being disturbed. Either way, contracts were broken, but I don't see how that translates to free speech - let the individuals involved in the contracts handle the problem, not the government.
But I digress.
It is good that the court struck down this thing, because it is a victory for the Constitution, and the rights of the American citizen -
and that is always
a good thing.