I don't think so. I think the Court says that false and misleading speech about when and where to vote can be banned, a point I made (distinguishing Alvarez) in "A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections? https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr/vol74/iss1/4/ …https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1007285944326721537 …
I agree (and argue in Cheap Speech) that such a law should be constitutional. I just don't think Mansky does much to help on that score.
-
-
I think it helps on tone & general judicial methodology. I read tone of Alvarez plurality as much more hostile to Govt interference with marketplace of ideas. I read Mansky tone as much more sympathetic to Govt regs that structure democratic deliberation w/o unneeded speech bans.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.