Fish on the First, Continued
Stanley Fish followed up on his original explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC with an examination of three contentious First Amendment questions: Does money equal speech? Should corporations share our rights as citizens? And, where’s the line between (free) speech and (punishable) action?
Fish does little to provide answers to a frustratingly confused public. The bewildering ridiculousness of First Amendment jurisprudence is at once infuriating and beautiful, apparently…
[I]t’s an act of prestidigitation, a magical sleight of hand, a game whose rules are continually changing, a discourse that can reach any conclusion at all including one you would have thought impossible. It hasn’t got a principled leg to stand on, and yet it keeps moving forward and producing real world consequences. In short, it is an absolutely marvelous achievement, something to be admired as a wonder even when you are distressed by the content of what it has just produced.