In my opinion (and the ACLU’s opinion) the Court erred in deciding that campaign contributions aren’t speech.
Your point about other than political speech is interesting. Based on Buckley, would it be Constitutional to pass a law limiting the amount of money that that one could donate to some newspaper? I don’t think so. I don’t believe Buckley would be extended beyond campaign contributions.
As long as you don’t criticize the Bush II Administration – because, as unca Ashcroft tells us, criticism of the administration is tantamount to helping terrorists! :rolleyes:
rjung, you don’t understand freedom of speech.
I’m free to say something idiotic. Ashcroft is free to call me a traitor. I’m free to call Ashcroft a fascist.
There’s no impairment to my FOS unless the government punishes me for what I said.
Right. But as long as that is the Court’s decision, you’re dead wrong in saying that money is speech in this context. It isn’t. And, IMHO, it shouldn’t be. “Impropriety or the appearance of impropriety,” remember?
Oh, I understand it – as a former card-carrying member of the ACLU, I’m well-versed on these types of issues.
True, though given his position as Attorney General, his statements tend to have a bit more weight. And while it’s not currently treason to criticize the Dubya administration, Ashcroft’s statement seemed to me to be an implied threat.
And given how Ashcroft has been systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights these days, that may happen any day now…
Since you’re a fellow free speech advocate, I should go easy on you. However, this is great debates, and duty calls. 
Nevertheless, mere statements by Ashcroft do not infringe our FOS.
I know you’re not alone in this POV, but I think it’s a case of over-sensitivity.
BTW where were the free speech advocates complaining about implicit threats when Hillary Clinton called people like me members of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
You’re jumping the gun, here. If that ever occurs, I’ll be side-by-side with you, rjung.
Just as a casual thought, it’s perfectly legal to shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater, provided that there is an actual fire burning at the moment. What Justice Holmes characterized as not being included in the freedom was ‘falsely shouting “fire”…’
I wasn’t aware that Hillary singled you out by name, december. 
And you will have to admit that the First Lady of the United States has a lot less power and authority than the Attorney General of the United States.
Besides, considering that there’s a good argument that there was a right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons, perhaps Hillary’s statement was nothing more than an iteration of the truth…
You forget that treason is a specific crime named in the Constitution. “Right wing conspiracy” was merely a turn of phrase, not an accuation of a crime any more than calling someone “liberal” is accusation of a crime.
But then having liberal thoughts, to many conservatives, is be considered criminal…
Cite?
You want an anecdotal cite on an anecdotal claim?
I like to shout “MOVIE!” in crowded fire houses, but since 9/11 the fire fighters are all pretty jumpy.