You hypocritical bastard

[drwex]

Yes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write

Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor

and not include a footnote saying "Except where the speech concerns drugs and the censor is the governmental or in loco parentis authority figure?

Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?

(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)

P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.

Comments

[wotw]

Oh, these rulings were more consistent with each other than you
give them credit for. They both said, in effect, that your right
to free speech depends on what you're saying, and more particularly
on whether the Supreme Court happens to *like* what you're saying.

If you buy airtime to discuss an *issue*, that's okay. If you buy
air time to back a *candidate*, that's not okay. If you put up a
pro-chastity banner, that's okay. If you put up a pro-drug banner,
that's not okay.

Both decisions come down to: "We plan to micromanage your freedom
of speech".

[drwex]

That's distressingly true.