Three Supreme Court Cases to Watch

Political Speech, Cellphone Searches, and the Future of Television


The Supreme Court is fast approaching the end of its current term. The court has already handed down major decisions on both affirmative action and campaign finance reform and is poised to rule on the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Reason Senior Editor Damon Root offers three more cases worth paying particular attention to, the decisions of which will impact warrantless cellphone searches, the limits of political free speech, and broadcast television in the digital age.

Approx. 4:30 minutes.

Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

NEXT: Katherine Mangu-Ward Discusses the Kidnappings in Nigeria, US Foreign Policy and Terrorism on The O'Reilly Factor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The problem with the Ohio law is that there are *already* laws against defamation, but these laws involve a judicial trial, with an impartial jury deciding the issue. Also, to get into court you have to actually have been injured by the allegedly false accusation.

    In contrast, Ohio’s law allows a commission, on a partisan vote (3-2 in this case) to initiate potentially-criminal proceedings against a target, and to do so on the complaint of any individual, not necessarily the person who was defamed. And the law protects the political class more than private individuals, whereas regulations of speech need to be evenhanded, without targeting particular speakers – eg, the govt can’t single out racist speech (R.A.V. case).

    1. So if they can’t even single out racist speech for special scrutiny, how can they single out criticism of politicians? Is that a worse threat to the republic than racism?

  2. there are *already* laws against

    Since when did this stop law makers? There are already laws against everything, but that won’t stop them from passing more.

  3. There’s still an old gal getting a Veteran’s Administration pension because of her father, a veteran…of the Civil War.

    And private Mose Triplett was a colorful character – a guy who deserted from the Confederate Army and joined the Unionist guerillas of George Kirk, whose, uh, irregular warfare in Western North Carolina gave him a kinda bad reputation.

    After the war, Triplett was a fun guy who “would pull the fangs from rattlesnakes, then keep them as pets in a chicken coop.”

    His second wife was 50 years younger than him, and their daughter, 84 year old Irene Triplett, still has a pension from his Civil War service.…..52394.html

    Info on George Kirk’s Raiders:

    1. Who’s George Kirk? I thought that Mark (who cut your hair, dude?) Davis still owns the Raiders?

  4. Here is a bit of last night’s Real Time with Matt as guest:…..ondemn-it/

    1. Surprising defense of liberalism by Maher.

    2. So how does Bengazi play into all this?

      You know where the Obama administration tried to blame a youtuber for a terrorist attack.

      You might notice that Hilary and Obama did blame the youtuber and not Islam and did not defend liberalism.

      Not only did Obama invent the youtuber but used that fantasy to forgive the terrorist attacks in fact even used it to pretend it was not a terrorist attack. If Brandeis university is guilty of PC shenanigans Obama is far more guilty and he used it to cover up the deaths of Americans and used the powers of the US government to do it.

      But I guess your response and Maher’s is that it is a fake scandal.

      1. Maher cited the fact that lots of violent spontaneous anti-video demonstrations had been occurring prior to Benghazi.

        Anyway, they were acts of terror. I personally don’t care what motivated these raghead murderers. Islam is a religion of terrorism against humans – period. Maher agrees. It was the black guy and Ms Huffington that defended the attackers.

        1. Maher cited the fact that lots of violent spontaneous anti-video demonstrations had been occurring prior to Benghazi.

          Maher cited a lie. there were no anti-video demonstrations before Benghazi. No one saw the video prior to the white house claiming they were protesting the video.

          Funny now that the video has been on google for over a year now and has millions of views yet the Muslim world does not seem to give a shit. Oh but yeah the muslim world sure cared a whole lot when the views were less then a thousand.

          Where are the protests now? Where are the condemnations by the muslim world of google for keeping the videos up?

          The whole thing was invented by the white house.

          I personally don’t care what motivated these raghead murderers. Islam is a religion of terrorism against humans – period. Maher

          That is a lie. Maher and you care very much about it that is why you two keep calling bengazi a fake scandal.

        2. Maher cited the fact that lots of violent spontaneous anti-video demonstrations had been occurring prior to Benghazi.

          Furthermore why isn’t Maher calling Obama and Hilary out for condemning the video? The Obama administration has pushed for google to bring the video down. Where is Maher to protect free speech?

          Maher doesn’t even believe his own bullshit. Why isn’t he defending liberalism against Obama and Hilary? Oh yeah i remember because liberalism isn’t as important as TEAM BLUE.

  5. I have a little more respect for Maher right now, because of that comment about the 14th century, that was pretty spot on.

    1. It was a surprising show. After some chit-chat on Benghazi Maher, Welch, and D’Souza were in full agreement the remainder of the time.

      Maher said he hoped D’Souza avoids prison for his campaign donation shenanigans. But the interesting part was where D’Souza agreed that being an “anti-Colonial” was a good thing. Then MAher asked him why he tried to smear Obama as one and D’Souza had no answer.

      1. and D’Souza had no answer.

        I seriously doubt that.

        Anyway you should watch his film. In it he does make a pretty clear distinction between his brand of anti-colonialism and the brand of anti-colonialism that he brands Obama with.

        I am skeptical about the brand he places on Obama but the different brands of anti-colonialism do exist and in fact you can find them right here in the comments of hit and run.

        There is a distinct difference between a libertarian’s anti-colonialism and the left’s anti-colonialism.

        You and Maher are being hacks when you try to hide those differences.

        1. I honestly don’t know what you are talking about re- these different flavors of anti-Colonialism.

          1. There’s a lot you don’t know.

          2. As I said watch the movie. D’Souza very clearly spelled out why he is anti-colonialism and he very clearly says Obama is also an anti-colonialist and then describes in mind numbing detail how their versions of anti-colonialism are different.

            D’Souza had no answer.

            He does have an answer and if i had to guess he gave one to Maher and you simply dismissed it and lied about him not having an answer.

  6. OT: There’s a new Michael Lind article on libertarianism (this time, Prof. Caplan) in Salon. I am generally good about avoiding the comments this time, but I had a relapse. My god, these people vote? And is there a single intellectually honest critique of libertarianism? Just one?

    1. I won’t bother going over there to read the comments. Those people have no idea what the fuck a libertarian is. You would think they would have to personally know at least one. Although, that probably wouldn’t help, since if you try to have a political debate with most progs, they will stick their fingers in their ears and scream.

    2. And is there a single intellectually honest critique of libertarianism?

      Not that I’ve seen. I only see arguments against libertarians from people who feel that ad hominems are compelling arguments.

    3. From a different Salon article:

      Seriously, has Salon become some kind of false-flag operation to discredit the left? Did the Koch brothers secretly buy it or something? I stopped following Salon a year or so ago and it was like finally turning off a constantly buzzing fluorescent light that I’d just gotten used to; so calm, so peaceful…

      Sums it up pretty well.

  7. Why can’t someone do something about Matt’s hair?

  8. is there a single intellectually honest critique of libertarianism? Just one?

    Libertarians are stingy poopyheads.

  9. New McKinsey Survey: 74% Of Obamacare Sign-Ups Were Previously Insured…..y-insured/

    New data: 83% of previously uninsured have paid up

    The new McKinsey data indicates that the proportion of uninsured individuals paying for coverage has shot up, from 53 percent in February to 83 percent in April. For previously insured individuals, the percentage of payers increased from 86 to 89 percent.

    Almost all of those pay-ups were poor people being subsidized by higher preniums on the young and government subsidy.

    1. Why aren’t you working to rid Canada of single-payer?

      1. I am you stupid deflecting asshole. A functional American health care system provides an escape from Canada’s health care wait list system and would provide pressure to reform-abolish that system. Obamacare moves America further from that functional system.

    2. Never trust Forbes to properly interpret a survey.

      McKinsey did not conclude that only 26% of individual market QHP purchasers were “previously uninsured”. Nor did they offer any evidence for such a conclusion. To do so, one would have to draw a random sample from the population of QHP buyers, and then count the number of previously uninsured in that sample. McKinsey did not do that. Rather they drew several samples from different populations and then aggregated the results. You can’t extrapolate to any population if you do this ? you can only look for trends, comparing results to previous, identically constructed studies. Which is what McKinsey did:

      “These findings are directional indicators only, based on publicly reported enrollment data and our own national online consumer survey.”

  10. I had pretty much given up all hope for the UK but apparently they did something right to their corporate tax regime because they are attracting big companies. This should spur some corporate tax competition. Move that Laffer curve down and to the left.…

    1. It is a bit surprising which countries are better on corporate taxes than the US. Or perhaps it is how stupid the US corporate and foreign tax policies are.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.