US Supreme Court mentions Kindle

[Madam Broshkina]

I was reading the oral arguments in Case 08-205, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission and noticed that the Kindle was mentioned by Justice Kennedy.

MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy. That is, if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And I suppose it could even, is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?
MR. STEWART: Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite, and broadcast communications. And the Court in McConnell has addressed the -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Just to make it clear, it's the government's position that under the statute, if this kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60-30 day period, if it comes from a satellite, it's under -- it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under this statute?
MR. STEWART: It -- it can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use -- to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC.

You can read the whole thing here:


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/08-205.pdf

[daffy4u]

Doing some light reading I see. Thanks for sharing. I'll take a peak but I don't know how long I'll last.

[Madam Broshkina]

For those interested here are the facts of the case:

Facts of the Case:

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.

In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Electioneering communication is "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which -- (I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; (II) is made within -- (aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or (bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate." Accordingly, Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.

The United States District Court denied the injunction. The court held that Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional reasoning that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. It also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized the disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause", but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.
Question:

1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?

2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not regulable "campaign speech"?

3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?

4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

Taken from:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

[daffy4u]

I actually recall a little bit about this. I used to be a lender on Prosper.com and someone associated with this film was trying to get a loan through Prosper to get it released. There was something about a lawsuit being filed and I remember trying to find it based on the docket number and couldn't. I've also seen an a clip from it online.

[Daithi]

I understand what people are trying to do -- i.e. reduce the influence of money in politics. However, in my opinion, restricting free speech, especially in regards to political issues is not the solution. I have a hard time understanding why the Supreme Court upheld this law in the first place.

[S.Canton]

I'm going to say right off the bat that I haven't browsed the link yet (I will shortly), but I find it interesting to see the Kindle getting more exposure, especially in "strange places" like that. The more exposure ebook readers get, the better.

[killa234]

I read an article about this last week that Discovery sues Kindle for patent infringement thus making the patent law alive and in progress.

[Daithi]

The "Discovery sues Kindle for patent infringement" is pretty interesting too, but this is about campaign advertising occuring within a certain window prior to an election. The idea that you cannot release a Kindle book that covers political issues within that time frame is frightening.

[markbot]

Mccain Feingold has to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.

[DixieGal]

I'm just amazed at the new feature of Kindles that the Justice states is the ability to pull content from the satellite it is under. I think that trumps whispernet!