|
There are many limitations on the first amendment already. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, divulging information that jeopardizes national security, libel and slander, obscenity, child porn, profiting from stories of ones federal felonies, incitement to commit a crime, cussing out a judge in court, and so on. Limits are added and removed with regularity. The court recognized that the campaign finance reform laws were an abridgement of first amendment rights, but felt that the state had a compelling overriding interest in regulating the election process. Just as forbidding people from shouting fire in crowded theaters limits first amendment rights, but the state has a compelling competing interest in providing for the safety of the public.
While the decision of the court is certainly open to debate, to argue that the first amendment should have no limits ignores two centuries of precedants to the contrary.
|