Study Challenges Supreme Court's Image as Defender of Free Speech

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the conventional wisdom goes, is exceptionally supportive of free speech. Leading scholars and practitioners have called the Roberts court the most pro-First Amendment court in American history.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[Carolab]

01:00 AM on 01/08/2012

The article notes that the court upholds animal cruelty, funeral protests and violence in video games plus unlimited corporate campaign finance, but not "challenges to the institutional authority of the government when it is regulating the speech of its employees, its students and its prisoners, and when claiming national security justifications." Yet, the article also notes: "It is unpopular speech, distasteful speech, that most requires First Amendment protection, and on that score, no prior Supreme Court has been as protective as this." Contradictory statements.

[Consequence]

12:39 AM on 01/08/2012

Anyone care to mention a specifc Freedom of Speech case that worked its way all the way through the lower courts that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear?

......anyone?

Didn't think so.

[Carolab]

01:05 AM on 01/08/2012

Doninger v. Niehoff

[Rick Goodner]

01:27 AM on 01/08/2012

I love how you slapped him :-)
It was like" POW! Right in the face, HA!

[Rick Goodner]

01:30 AM on 01/08/2012

I can hear you now: "But Master she did not play fair, she used facts. HA!
POW right to the kisser :-)

[Rick Goodner]

12:33 AM on 01/08/2012

This Supreme Court is ILLIBERAL.

[Consequence]

12:40 AM on 01/08/2012

Thankfully.

[Carolab]

01:00 AM on 01/08/2012

Got something against free speech?

[Rick Goodner]

01:14 AM on 01/08/2012

How un-American ILLIBERALS are

[Rick Goodner]

12:25 AM on 01/08/2012

They are not for free speech for real people only for big busness.

[builderman55]

11:52 PM on 01/07/2012

Equating money with speech is a perversion of the idea of free speech--in fact it is antithetical to free speech because the power of big money squeezes out the voices of the masses. This Supreme Court is execrable...

[ChristianEcon.com]

11:48 PM on 01/07/2012

The founders didn't think we'd be dumb enough to allow wealth disparity to get to this point when they conjured the concept of "free speech."

[SeekingClarity]

12:14 AM on 01/08/2012

Or that we could create persons with political rights by legal fiat, or that millions or billions of dollars would be mandatory to elect a major political representative, or that money spent to influence elections would be considered Constitutionally protected as free speech.

Some of them worried though that we might be foolish enough to let government by the people get away from us.

[ParrotPops]

11:42 PM on 01/07/2012

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I've long suspected that, while this court thinks corporations are people, it believes people aren't.

[ChristianEcon.com]

11:44 PM on 01/07/2012

..not the ones doing the work, anyway.

[SeekingClarity]

12:15 AM on 01/08/2012

Not the people that matter in any case.

[ChristianEcon.com]

11:36 PM on 01/07/2012

Is the Roberts court friendly to free speech? All the free speech you can afford.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

11:06 PM on 01/07/2012

The Roberts Court........says it all,there is no SCOTUS.

[wrightthewrong]

10:45 PM on 01/07/2012

Only if speech is defined as money is the Roberts Court a friend of free speech. Disgraceful. This court will be written about in history with a much better (or worse?) perspective.

[MattPatrick]

10:16 PM on 01/07/2012

This is the number one reason not to have another Republican president in '12.

[SeekingClarity]

12:18 AM on 01/08/2012

Or had one in any year from Nixon to George II.

[Odin707]

10:14 PM on 01/07/2012

It depends if they get approval from his corporate masters.

[HellBank]

10:09 PM on 01/07/2012

When it comes to the 1% speaking, they're fine with that.

[cadawa]

09:41 PM on 01/07/2012

Like most conventional wisdom, this one is wrong as well.
They no more support free speech than their puppet masters support it in the Board Rooms they command.
This court equates money and speech. Nothing 'free' about that.

[jeb50]

09:37 PM on 01/07/2012

When it comes to our rights we do not have a SC.

[rysagr]

11:01 PM on 01/07/2012

which right of yours has been stopped?

[ParrotPops]

11:52 PM on 01/07/2012

Privacy is under serious assault, if you haven't noticed.
So is the right to confront your accuser. And habeas corpus.

[Rick Goodner]

01:21 AM on 01/08/2012

OWS' First Amendment rights, Ginger. Or have you not seen the police action? Oh you have seen and enjoyed it.