The article critiques the Supreme Court's bias in free speech rulings, arguing that it selectively protects conservative speech while suppressing criticism. It highlights a specific case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, where the court invalidated donor disclosure laws, prioritizing the speech of wealthy conservatives and emphasizing their right to anonymity over accountability. Justice Clarence Thomas's framing of potential donor backlash against organizations accused of racism or homophobia illustrates this selective protection, suggesting the court values certain speech over others based on ideological alignment.
The Republican justices seem to think that some people get free speech while others do not. This court, driven by conservative grievance, favors speech aligning with conservative interests.
The court treated criticism of wealthy conservatives as bad, claiming it chills speech, but willingly protects the speech of wealthy conservatives and their organizations.
Collection
[
|
...
]