Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.
UPDATE: Josh Blackman made the same observation.
TNeloms says:
Soon? Did Souter ghost-write this?
January 21, 2010, 12:56 pmADF Alliance Alert » Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits says:
[...] Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy: The First Appearance of the Word “Blog” in a Supreme Court Opinion The Scope of the Ban at Issue in Citizens United Citizens United on the Deterrent Effect of Complex [...]
January 21, 2010, 12:56 pm30yearProf says:
Political speech IS also “free” speech. It’s about time.
Absent outright bribery (a la $100,000 in the home freezer) and unrepentant publication of knowingly false material statements, Congress should keep its mitts off campaigning.
The inmates can not write fair rules for admittance to the Asylum.
January 21, 2010, 12:57 pmlaw student says:
Youtube also gets a special shoutout in the conclusion:
Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurssolely because a corporation, other than an exempt mediacorporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech.
January 21, 2010, 1:04 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The First Appearance of the Word “Blog” in a Supreme Court Opinion -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Chuck Plunkett, Robert Efroymson. Robert Efroymson said: First use of the word "Blog" in a Supreme Court Opinion (per Volokh) http://is.gd/6KKQ9 [...]
January 21, 2010, 2:20 pmChris says:
So is this simply expanding 1st Amendment rights to corporations because the reality of current communications technology requires it?
January 21, 2010, 3:19 pmAveSharia says:
Oh man… Wish I had my 1st Amendment Law final paper from law school handy.
Found the thesis:
Whatever happened to that proposed Reg., anyway?
January 21, 2010, 3:25 pmso and so says:
Darn! I was going to mention this one. It seems to be the first mention of Youtube by SCOTUS as well.
January 21, 2010, 3:44 pmlawstudent2 says:
See also, U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 278 n.4 (2005).
January 21, 2010, 4:01 pmPeoples Press Collective » Congress shall make no law: Blogs appear in Supreme Court decision for first time says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy: Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, [...]
January 21, 2010, 4:14 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
this post is mentioned in declan mccullough’s article on the case
January 21, 2010, 4:14 pmhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10439023-38.html
30yearProf says:
Does YouTube work? You bet. 7.5 MILLION hits and growing every day.
If the target was a politician he’d be down by 40% and seeking to retire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
January 21, 2010, 4:54 pmJenP says:
Um, HT Josh Blackman who posted this on his blog earlier today… http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=3789. FWIW.
January 21, 2010, 5:27 pmPolitical Activity Law · The Citizens United/lobbying connection says:
[...] the opinion. (It’s the Court’s first use of the term “blog,” according to Volokh.) There’s a lot to [...]
January 21, 2010, 8:12 pmSCOTUSblog » Friday round-up says:
[...] uphold the “disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting” requirement in the BCRA. And Eugene Volokh notes that yesterday was the first time the word “blog” appeared in a Supreme Court [...]
January 22, 2010, 11:30 amMikee says:
Please predict when the first Supreme Court uses of the terms LOL, OMG, ROFLMAO and IYKWIMAITYD will occur, and for extra credit predict the date for first appearance of LOLCATS in an opinion.
January 23, 2010, 12:20 pmtrial offer says:
Good points…I would note that as someone who really doesn’t write on blogs much (in fact, this may be my first post), I don’t think the term “lurker” is very becoming to a non-posting reader. It’s not your fault really , but perhaps the blogosphere could come up with a better, non-creepy name for the 90% of us that enjoy reading the posts.
April 6, 2010, 2:56 pmBlogs make the big (or small?) time - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register says:
[...] “Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,” – Justice Anthony Kennedy [...]
April 15, 2010, 12:45 pmdoctor takapuna says:
Hey I was just wondering If somebody could help me out with this , I read this blog a fair bit but sometimes the background stuffs up and I cant read the text. PLease help me out
August 7, 2010, 2:13 am