If they decide free speech doesn't apply to actual people's speech but does apply to large corporations giving money then ... well, yeah. That would be ungood.
Very much not a fan of the Court but I don’t believe this is true? They haven’t granted certiorari in any case where that’s at issue. (That’s based on me looking through Scotusblog’s docket info but of course I may be missing something)
I believe the article is saying that if the Court starts treating the First Amendment like the Second, which some lower court judges think it should, then those laws would potentially be back on the table. But they’re not before the Court right now
“Prurient interests were heavily represented in abolitionist circles, thus showing the inherent hedonistic nature of excessive progressive causes. As such, the court finds that restricting such excesses are, in fact, wholly necessary.”
Comments
A few years ago, I'd expect a 9-0 smackdown. These days... who knows? There seems to be no form of authoritarianism they don't embrace.