Less pissed off I am! I understand—and will try to explain—the majority decision in McMullen v. Coakley; still, the decision troubles me.
The First Amendment provides, expressly, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .” (Not important, here, is the means by which the First Amendment applies to a law adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) Political speech gets special protections, for the First Amendment was designed to protect it.
Time, place and manner restrictions are permissible. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck v. United States, stated what seems obvious: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing