Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie

[classicman]

LINK

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.

The test "does not depend on the length or the way it's communicated," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.

Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think the film is protected, the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.

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.

Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.

But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.

It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating political material during election seasons.

That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.

What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it aired at the right time, it would," Stewart said.

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.

Olson argued that campaign finance laws should not apply to the movie at all, calling it a "long discussion" that "informs and educates" interested people on Clinton's qualifications and record. That argument did not seem to sway several of the court's liberal justices.

Only one justice, Stephen Breyer, acknowledged actually watching the movie and his reaction: It's "not a musical comedy," he said.

Several justices quoted from the script, which is filled with criticism of the former first lady. It includes Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying the one-time candidate is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

"If that isn't an appeal to voters, I don't know what is," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

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.

"Isn't that a heightened First Amendment" concern, Scalia asked.

Ginsburg, however, pointed out that Citizens United never made that argument before the lower court, making it difficult for the high court to consider it now.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

How does this differ from the Fahrenheit or "W"? I'm not sure why this is getting a review of a court and why the court is getting involved in a movie.
The extended implications are a little scary too.

[Trilby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[DanaC]

Were Farhenheit and 'W' released close to elections and funded by corporations and unions? Or were they released at another time and/or funded by private individuals?

[TheMercenary]

Funny, I thought of Mikey Moore when I heard about this too.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Were Farhenheit and 'W' released close to elections and funded by corporations and unions?

ok, I'll play devils advocate - Does that really matter? and if so why?

Fahrenheit 9/11 was released on June 23, 2004. IIRC that was an election year was it not?
"W" was released on October 17, 2008. Again an election year. Of course he was not a candidate (Thank whomever)

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or were they released at another time and/or funded by private individuals?

They are still fighting this now and we aren't due for an election for 2 years. Also, it is a movie. It was initially released primarily for Pay-per-view and sales.
How does this differ from a book or DVD or a magazine...
I'm trying to look at the longer range issues rather than those related to the individuals involved.
Specifically is this or can this be construed as a form of censorship?

[Shawnee123]

But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.

It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating political material during election seasons.

That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.

[classicman]

Whats your opinion on that S123?

[Shawnee123]

My opinion is that your question was answered in your article. :p

I don't really know enough to give my opinion.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I don't really know enough to give my opinion.

Since when has that ever stopped you........................... or me. :p

[Shawnee123]

Right this second, I have a very strong opinion about you, but I'm keeping it to myself.

Oh, and bite me, I don't belong in your little "spout off about everything we know nothing about" club. I mean, you didn't even read your own article.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

They are still fighting this now and we aren't due for an election for 2 years.

Probably because it took this long to get to the Supreme Court.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

Since when has that ever stopped you........................... or me. :p

Heeheee...brat I see whut you did thar.

I was just messin' with you.

[sugarpop]

I believe they blocked it because the advertising on TV and radio would violate the McCain/Fiengold bill on equal access time. The guy (who made the movie) admitted in an interview last night on MSNBC that he made the movie and tried to release it during an election year specifically to take it to the Supreme Court and get a ruling. Personally, I think it probably is a violation of free speech, but I do see the conflict as well.

The election/campaign process needs reforming. There is apparently a bill being introduced that would end the process as it is now and have all campaigns be publicly financed. I have said this should happen, and that all campaigns should only last about 4 months, with weekly debates with ALL candidates, and free commerical airtime divided equally among candidates. Since the airwaves are supposed to be owned by the people, corporations who own networks and make money should be required to donate that time.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I believe they blocked it because the advertising on TV and radio would violate the McCain/Fiengold bill on equal access time.

What? Obama got much more time than McCain. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act had nothing to do with equal time at all. Where did you get that?
The Bill was about soft money and corporate or "nonprofit" ads trying to skirt that issue.

as of July 19, 2008:

Since the general election in early June - network newscasts
Obama 114 minutes,
McCain's 48 minutes.
total for the year,
Obama 389 minutes
McCain 203 minutes
according to Andrew Tyndall

That is for the newscasts, I remember seeing info on how much more time Obama bought than McCain, but I cannot find it and I'm tired.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

The guy (who made the movie) admitted in an interview last night on MSNBC that he made the movie and tried to release it during an election year specifically to take it to the Supreme Court and get a ruling. Personally, I think it probably is a violation of free speech, but I do see the conflict as well.

I must have missed that as well as the news outlets - got a link?
Fahrenheit 9/11 was released on June 23, 2004.
"W" was released on October 17, 2008.
Both were election years.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

What? Obama got much more time than McCain. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act had nothing to do with equal time at all. Where did you get that?

I'm just relaying what I heard.

The Bill was about soft money and corporate or "nonprofit" ads trying to skirt that issue.

as of July 19, 2008:

That is for the newscasts, I remember seeing info on how much more time Obama bought than McCain, but I cannot find it and I'm tired.

I must have missed that as well as the news outlets - got a link?
Fahrenheit 9/11 was released on June 23, 2004.
"W" was released on October 17, 2008.
Both were election years.

I'll have to go look for it. I think it was on Hardball a few nights ago. I'll post it later. I don't feel like looking right now. It was an interesting interview though. Like I said, I think it violates free speech. He should have been able to release it.