Nobody was stopping them from making or distributing the movie. The case concerned restrictions on the airing of ads in a narrow window of time to prevent unlimited use of money for electioneering purposes.
The District Court determined that the movie itself was "electioneering communication":
> After viewing The Movie and examining the 73-page script at length, the court finds Mr. Morris's description to be accurate. The Movie is susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.[12] The 280*280 Movie is thus the functional equivalent of express advocacy. See WRTL, 127 S.Ct. at 2667 (setting out the "functional equivalent" standard). As such, it falls within the holding of McConnell sustaining, as against the First Amendment, § 203 insofar as it bars corporations from funding electioneering communications that constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy.
This essentially prevented the group from airing the movie on television within 30 days of the Democratic Primary (i.e. the very period during which one might want to air a movie advocating for or against a candidate!) The group would have faced civil and criminal penalties for airing the movie.
And you've just gotten to the heart of why it's different from Brown. Money corrupts politics and threatens democracy. There is no such problem with violent video games.
If you think it's "insane" that we make this distinction, all I can say is that I think you're insane for not making it.
If money is like cooties, in that it ruins everything it touches, no matter what actual role it plays in the situation, then everything in this world is screwed up forever. But, that's not the case. The real problem with money in politics is the corruption of political, regulatory, administrative, and legislative decisions. When you fixate on stupid shit like some movie some dudes made, that idiocy is quite useful for those who benefit by that corruption.
Exactly. People vastly misunderstand Citizens United.
Fox News is Rupert Murdoch buying airtime in bulk for his political speech. Unless you propose to shut it down along with every other privately owned media company, money is speech.
Put another way, the CU decision argued that individuals do not give up their right to free expressions just because they decided to pool their money in a particular way.
The speech CU engaged in implicates practical problems violent video games do not. The question has never been one of worth. If it were, I'd have a long list of people I'd like locked up, starting with all politicians and lawyers.
(I'm very confused as to how you came to this conclusion, by the way, and would appreciate an explanation. That it's a matter of what "deserves" protection is exactly the idea the comment you replied to sought to dismiss, so somehow you've interpreted my statements exactly backwards.)
- "time, place, and manner" restrictions such as not yelling at 4 AM in a residential area (these must withstand what's called "immediate scrutiny", which basically says that the restrictions must be content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a specific government interest, and leave ample opportunity to share outside of the specific circumstances)
- "content" restrictions, such as restrictions on direct threats or child porn. These must pass strict scrutiny (narrowly tailored, serve a specific government interest, and be the least restrictive means to serve that interest.)
The government's interest has never been in "remedying" the problem of people speaking about politics, regardless of money (it does have an interest in stopping bribery, but that's a different issue.) Indeed, Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United is quite direct about wanting to allow more people to speak about politics -- specifically, allowing associations of people (ie, corporations, unions, etc.) the same ability to speak that single wealthy individuals have. The alternative to CU is frightening -- the only people whose political messages could be heard would be the few with the money to own media companies, or the few with the social networking apparatus to create faux-viral content.
This parallels older supreme court decisions such as:
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830)
Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
United States v. United Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957)
In my opinion, restrictions on electioneering spending do pass strict scrutiny.
> The government's interest has never been in "remedying" the problem of people speaking about politics, regardless of money
Money is all that is at issue here. Like many others, I categorically reject the notion that money is speech, and have done so for a very long time in the face of far more detailed and principled arguments to the contrary than have been presented in this thread.
> (it does have an interest in stopping bribery, but that's a different issue.)
Bribery is not a different issue -- campaign contributions, direct or not, are bribery.
> allowing associations of people
I will never consider "associations" that shield their members/owners from personal liability to be entitled to speak or do anything else without the permission of society.
The alternative to CU is not frightening. The alternative to CU is recognition of the obvious: Limited liability entities are not entitled to any rights, political campaigns should be publicly funded, and individual spending on electioneering should be strictly limited.
Notice I keep saying "electioneering", not "politics", because the conduct at issue is expenditure of money on electioneering, not speaking about or spending money on politics in general. This is just one example of the vast disconnect in evidence here.
People can judge the message by the speaker. When billionaiare Meg Whitman ran for office, her ads were on every single commercial break. She still lost. People saw through her.
When you have a multitude of associations, you can't tell who is saying what, and it creates confusion.