First Amendment Victory

[WashDad]

<p>There is no sarcasm in this post…</p>

<p>Backed by amicus briefs by both the ACLU and the Cato Institute, lawyers representing two hosts on Seattle’s KVI radio have won a victory in the Washington State Supreme Court. The two were active supporters of a tax-restriction initiative on the ballot, and publicized events and encouraged support for the initiative. A lower court ruled that the radio time had to be reported as “in kind” financial support of the initiative. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court on a 7-0 vote.</p>

<p>Any time the ACLU and the Cato Institute find common cause I’m tempted to thing someone made a mistake somewhere…</p>

<p>Article here: <a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_SCOW_Talk_Radio_Disclosure.html[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_SCOW_Talk_Radio_Disclosure.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[conyat]

<p>Actually, I’d think that the ACLU and the Cato Institute have a lot of common causes. True conservatives have as much interest in preserving the Constitution as anyone.</p>

<p>One of the Cato Institute’s positions that I think the ACLU would agree with: no-knock warrants being granted without adequate grounds or safeguards.
<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6651[/url]”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6651&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[WashDad]

<p>I see my post was ambiguous. What I meant to conclude with was, “Any time the ACLU and Cato Institute find common cause, they are probably right.”</p>

[conyat]

<p>Oh, sorry, I thought you had fallen prey to the neocon/conservative confusion.</p>

[garland]

<p>Washdad–I read your first comment wrong too, and totally agree with your redirect.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>Good post, but actually the case was not decided based on the First Amendment. It was decided based on State statute. </p>

<p>

We hold that the radio broadcasts at issue fall within the statutory media exemption (RCW 42.17.020(15)(b)(iv)) because they aired during the content portion of a regularly scheduled radio program, for which the broadcaster does not normally require payment, on a radio station that is not controlled by a candidate or political committee. Because the media exemption applies, the radio broadcasts are not a campaign “contribution” within the meaning of RCW 42.17.020(15)(a).

</p>

[WashDad]

<p>I knew that, but I still think it is a positive step for free speech in a larger sense, even if the state court used other legal reasoning.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

I knew that, but I still think it is a positive step for free speech in a larger sense, even if the state court used other legal reasoning.

Free speech – Yes. First Amendment – No. There is counter claim restored that will address a First Amendment claim later.</p>

<p>Still a good post.</p>