Why should they be treated any differently? It boggles the mind. As Taranto notes:
That resolves the conundrum we noted atop this column. Fringe political speech like flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades is so broadly unappealing as to have no effect on "the will of the people." The same is true of nonpolitical forms of expression such as pornography, violent video games and depictions of animal cruelty. (Breyer's willingness to countenance restrictions of the first two has to do with the protection of children, not of the body politic.)
Only mainstream political expression has the potential to thwart the "collective" will, and thus, in the view of Breyer and his fellow dissenters, it alone is deserving of restriction on such a rationale. That stands the First Amendment on its head. Its purpose may be to "make government responsive," as Wilson argued, but the means by which it does so is the limitation of government power and protection of individual freedom.
So only political speech requires adult restrictions? Not commercial speech, not speech of the press and the MSM, not porn, not commercial advertising, just political speech of individuals?
Why not limit those Viagra ad budgets, for the children of course.
Even if this is all un-American and strange, it seems hardly partisan since the very wealthy tend to support the Leftist control freaks. What's up with all of this? And what the heck is "the collective will"? There is no collective will except nominally and only in totalitarian states.
Let's face it: When politics and government are too important, freedom is in trouble.
Related: What if Media Spending Were Treated Like Campaign Spending?
Related: Attacking Political Advocate Spending…. Unless They’re Unions
