VoiceofReason

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.

Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues "Hillary: The Movie" and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race. "
Judges: Anti-Clinton Film Is Advertising

So much for free speech.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about it liberals who always stand up for free speech? Is it free speech only when you agree with it?

nerv14

All political views aside, do you actualy think that the movie isn't intended to make people not vote for hilary?

if it is intened to influence votes than the funds need to be displayed, but the movie could still be played so speach wouldn't be infringed upon. if you truely believe that it is just reporting information that is similar to news than the 1st ammendment is being broken.

VoiceofReason

So what if it is, what happened to free speech, what business is it of a court?

Caltex

This is the reason many conservatives were against McCain-Feingold. It does inhibit free speech.

If an independent group of citizens want to spread the word about how evil Hilary Clinton is, should they not have the right to unless it becomes slanderous? If the government tries to stop it, it is inhibiting their freedom of speech.

__________________

Shiva_TD

Is that even really relevant? If the movie is defined as a documentary and it does not present slanderous falsehoods then it shouldn't be restricted by the courts. If Hillary Clinton has a problem with its accuracy then she has recourse to the courts in a civil suit for damages.

In any case freedom of speech is more important than any other issue.

VoiceofReason

I still hold it against McCain. It is of no business of the courts whether this groups supports or doesn't support the candidate their film is about and it should certainly be the constitutional rights to vocie their opinion about the candidate. As long as it is not slander free speech should prevail.

So where are the liberals and Democrats who support free speech? Where is the ACLU?

LessGovMrPrez

How wonderful! Libs and their double standard. "Its free speech, until it goes against us".

nerv14

I don't like hilary clinton and i am sure most of it is true and even if the courts are being used as an exuse the point is that the funds just need to be displayed becasue it apparently is showing a strong political view. we can't have people using loopholes to avoid showing their funding.

Freedom of speech and the consitition is the most important issue but the funds just need to be displayed to see if any presidential candidate is funding it. Unless someone who doesn't want to be seen is finnancing the movie i don't see why they wouldn't be ok with seeing who is funding it. No one is preventing the movie from being shown if they just give that information.

nerv14

??? Liberals aren't having any double standard. The movie breaks political funding laws. If you allowed something like this than you would open the floodgate to poltical movies funded by politicians with their own money. If you have a problem with this than take it up against the law and don't blame random people.

Troianii

I have found that liberals in general are opposed to freedom of speech, such as hate speech. It seems like it's only the "whacko liberals" that favor it, or at least say that it is a Constitutional right.

However, I know the defense, in this case. In this case they aren't keeping the people from "speaking", they would make sure that the people tell viewers this is a political ad... It's like forcing the Black Panthers to, before every speech, announce that it is hate speech, and not allow them to give the speech during Prime Time... Quite frankly, this is the government sanctioning a violation of the Constitution.



All political views aside, I think that this movie is educational. It is designed to educate people on Hillary Clinton, and if that will lose votes for her... Does this ad need to provide funds? I think that some kids in schools legitimately are convinced to vote Democrat when they read about FDR and JFK - do the teachers, the school institutions, and the history books need to give the kids the sources of their funds? Do they need to inform the kids that their speeches and books are political ads? Quite simply, the teachers, the school institutions, and the books influence people not by lying to them, but primarily by telling them truths. These may be selective truths, but they are still truths, and they generally don't spout smears and lies - and, though I haven't seen it, I don't think this movie does either (from what little I know of it).