In the Supreme Court’s rehearing of Citizens United v. FEC, the Obama administration stuck by its guns, arguing that a government power to ban political books is consistent with the First Amendment. Beyond that, the administration argued that the power to ban electronically transmitted books (such as Kindle books) is already present in the statute in question.
Got that? The government says that, under existing law, it has the power to ban political e-books in some circumstances.
The administration argues that we can trust them not to do so, to which Chief Justice Roberts replied, “we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.” And well we don’t, because in the administration lawyer’s very next breath, she said that pamphlets are different; they might very well ban a pamphlet.
To summarize: under the Obama administration’s argument, our right to publish books is not absolute. It depends on a variety of factors including (1) content, (2) length, (3) means of transmission, and (4) means of financing. I think I like the First Amendment better.
How these people can call themselves liberals is beyond me.
Internet Scofflaw 