Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament...

    29,904 Messages
    961 Likes Received

    Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie

    Associated Press Writer

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season.

    One justice warned that the future of the nation's campaign finance law could ride on their decision on whether the anti-Clinton movie was journalism or a political attack ad.

    Government lawyers argued that conservative group Citizens United's 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie" is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws.

    The test "does not depend on the length or the way it's communicated," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.

    Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.

    Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary "Hillary: The Movie" to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.

    But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.

    It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.

    That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.

    What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it aired at the right time, it would," Stewart said.

    Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates.

    But former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for Citizens United, said violation of campaign finance laws are a felony that could bring prison time. "What they mean by prohibit is that they will put you in jail," Olson said.

    Olson argued that campaign finance laws should not apply to the movie at all, calling it a "long discussion" that "informs and educates" interested people on Clinton's qualifications and record. That argument did not seem to sway several of the court's liberal justices.

    Only one justice, Stephen Breyer, acknowledged actually watching the movie and his reaction: It's "not a musical comedy," he said.

    Several justices quoted from the script, which is filled with criticism of the former first lady. It includes Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying the one-time candidate is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

    "If that isn't an appeal to voters, I don't know what is," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

    But Citizens United's attempts to pay for the movie to be shown on video-on-demand—where people request "Hillary: The Movie" be shown on the televisions in their home—could bring heightened First Amendment scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia said.

    Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it, Scalia said.

    "Isn't that a heightened First Amendment" concern, Scalia asked.

    Ginsburg, however, pointed out that Citizens United never made that argument before the lower court, making it difficult for the high court to consider it now.

    The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

    The justices are expected to make a decision before early summer.


    The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
  2. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,732 Messages
    38 Likes Received
    Another reminder of that disaster of a law, McCain-Feingold. What in the world was McCain thinking? I thought it would have already been struck down as unconstitutional. The restrictions put on free speech seems to fly in the face of everything the Bill of Rights stands for. Not surprising it is government lawyers under Obama fighting for more restrictions of freedom speech and the press.
  3. heavyg

    heavyg Active Member

    1,817 Messages
    22 Likes Received
    It was ok to make one called W. but God forbid you make something that might not paint St. Hillary in a good light. Can you imagine what is going to happen if someone tries to make a movie about "The Messiah" :bang2:

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    38,558 Messages
    3,996 Likes Received
    To late. We already had to suffer through 8 years of Urkel once.

  5. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    25,547 Messages
    3,780 Likes Received
    George W. wasn't running for office. I think that's the major point in this issue. If he were, I would agree with you.

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    38,558 Messages
    3,996 Likes Received

    So long as the piece is factual, I don't really see a problem with it. I mean, if you don't want bad things to come out, don't do bad things. If you haven't done bad things and somebody publishes something that is none factual, then you already have legal recourse.
  7. ninja

    ninja Numbnuts

    6,270 Messages
    1,065 Likes Received
    I hope Hillary is clothed during this movie, no nude scenes.

    Any truth to the rumor that Sandra Bernhard will play Chelsea?
  8. Bob Sacamano

    Bob Sacamano Benched

    57,073 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    or a cabbage patch doll
  9. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    25,547 Messages
    3,780 Likes Received
    I think we're comparing apples and oranges.

    The Bush movie was "based on a true story." As such, the producer has more license to be creative.

    I wasn't addressing "truth" or "falsity." I was addressing "timing."

    BTW, what legal recourse would one have if the information presented was false? :confused:

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    38,558 Messages
    3,996 Likes Received

    Any person has the right to sue for Libel or Slander if it can be proven. As for the timing, well, that's the cost of doing business. Lets not forget that George Bush was being vilified by the Left long before he ever became President. It's not as if it suddenly started when he got elected. That's just part of being in Politics IMO.
  11. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    25,547 Messages
    3,780 Likes Received
    Celebrities have a higher burden of proof, though. That's why it's not always advantageous to sue for libel or slander even if you are a celebrity.

    But thanks for clarifying.

Share This Page