While publicly excoriating the Supreme Court at a State of the Union Address constitutes a new low by itself, in this case, the low is made lower by the fact that the president — a former constitutional law professor — didn’t even get his legal analysis right. Even leftie Times analyst Linda Greenhouse noted that Obama was wrong, and as Glenn Reynolds quipped, “When you’ve lost Linda Greenhouse . . .
Amazingly, the loudest cries of liberal outrage are being directed not at Barack Obama, but at Justice Alito, who in a purely defensive and reflexive manner (immersed in a sea of sycophantic Obama flunkies applauding loudly), indicated disapproval.
Check it out:

Via Orin Kerr, who notes,

Justice Alito has the very human reaction of mouthing disagreement….

I have to say, I admire anyone who would dare to mouth disagreement when surrounded by loud and angry hordes.
I couldn’t help notice that Attorney General Eric Holder looms large in the foreground. Holder has said that he favors restrictions on Internet speech, and he tried to use his position to block an ad for school vouchers.
Glenn Greenwald — supposedly a champion of the First Amendment — ought to be especially ashamed of himself. (See Ann Althouse’s analysis, which Glenn linked earlier.) But of course he won’t.
What I find most horrifying about the whole matter is that it provides the starkest evidence yet that this president’s attitude towards the First Amendment may be the most hostile in U.S. history.
Instead of defending free speech, liberals now want to stifle it. Liberal activists are demanding a constitutional amendment abridging free speech for corporations.
What is being forgotten — and what I think these activists want all of us to forget — is that this whole thing started by a government censorship of a movie.

“Hillary: The Movie” came and went without much of a splash last year. Reviews were not flattering, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign waned and one devastating critique made sure that the scalding documentary would never become a blockbuster hit.
It came from a panel of judges in Washington that said “H:TM” was not really a movie at all.

Really? You can watch it like any other movie.
Here’s the trailer — for a film that the United States government banned:

But the government objected based on its content and the lower court agreed:

The court sided with the Federal Election Commission and said the film was a 90-minute campaign ad “susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.”
As such, the film produced by conservative activists at Citizens United fell under the tangle of broadcast and advertising restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that dictate how and when the movie can be shown and advertised.

If the government can censor a Citizens United film, then why not a Larry Flynt film? An Oliver Stone film? A Michael Moore film? (These guys are all incorporated, along with other big names in the film business.) Suppose they had made a film that a court decided was “susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that President Bush is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Bush world, and that viewers should vote against him.”
I think that might very well include a Hollywood film or two.
So what’s the deal? Are liberals so caught up with the conservative aspect of this film (and the fact that the corporation had conservative views) that they don’t realize the First Amendment cuts both ways?
Or is this just the latest twist on the old “Free speech for me, but not for thee“?