Below is an excerpt from an outstanding article this week from Jacob Sullum in Reason.org on the debate over how or whether a case over speech restrictions became a battle about government censorship of books, commercials, and on-demand videos.  He concludes, it was always a battle over government censorship not merely regulating campaign finance.  In this digital and Internet age, the government’s appetite in regulating all different types and forms of speech, including even books and pamphlets, is invasive and concerning.

The proposed distinction between documentaries like Hillary:
The Movie (which the Court described as “a feature-length
negative advertisement”) and the “commercials” that
Toobin says were Congress’ real target raises similar problems: How
short can a permitted documentary be without becoming a prohibited
ad? Justice Anthony Kennedy posed another puzzler: Since BCRA’s ban on electioneering
communications refers to “satellite” communications, wouldn’t
it apply to an electronic book mentioning a federal candidate “if
it comes from a satellite”? What about books read on radio or
TV? Do they retain their talismanic paper value when converted to
audio? Contrary to the way Toobin presents it, the book
question—posed initially by Justice Samuel Alito, then pressed by
Kennedy and Roberts—was not a trick that “turned a fairly obscure
case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government
censorship.” The battle was always about government censorship; the
question merely highlighted that point.

To provide more context, Sullum is analyzing Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the New Yorker Magazine.  Bottom Line:  The Supreme Court wasn’t playing games with the First Amendment.

Below is an excerpt from an outstanding article this week from Jacob Sullum in Reason.org on the debate over how or whether a case over speech restrictions became a battle about government censorship of books, commercials, and on-demand videos.  He concludes, it was always a battle over government censorship not merely regulating campaign finance.  In this digital and Internet age, the government’s appetite in regulating all different types and forms of speech, including even books and pamphlets, is invasive and concerning.

The proposed distinction between documentaries like Hillary:
The Movie (which the Court described as “a feature-length
negative advertisement”) and the “commercials” that
Toobin says were Congress’ real target raises similar problems: How
short can a permitted documentary be without becoming a prohibited
ad? Justice Anthony Kennedy posed another puzzler: Since BCRA’s ban on electioneering
communications refers to “satellite” communications, wouldn’t
it apply to an electronic book mentioning a federal candidate “if
it comes from a satellite”? What about books read on radio or
TV? Do they retain their talismanic paper value when converted to
audio? Contrary to the way Toobin presents it, the book
question—posed initially by Justice Samuel Alito, then pressed by
Kennedy and Roberts—was not a trick that “turned a fairly obscure
case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government
censorship.” The battle was always about government censorship; the
question merely highlighted that point.

To provide more context, Sullum is analyzing Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the New Yorker Magazine.  Bottom Line:  The Supreme Court wasn’t playing games with the First Amendment.