it's interesting to me that the same folks who wanted Citzens United because it was supposedly pro free speech are also in favor of SOPA which is pretty clearly anti free speech. what they have in common is both favor large corporations at the expense of individuals and the non-rich. more freedom for the former and less for the latter. not a good trend in a country historically and ostensibly founded on individual liberty and non-aristocracy.
Likewise. I side with the ACLU on Citizens United - i.e. that the Supreme Court decided it correctly.
You can rationally be displeased what you expect the outcome of the case to be (e.g. increased ability for corporate financing of election campaigns), but I don't think there's a coherent defense of the sections of BCRA that the court struck down.
ETA: The government argued that BCRA would allow them to ban, for example, a 500 page book that contained a single sentence endorsing a candidate (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/will-elena-kagan-allow...). If you think SOPA is heavy-handed, just think what BCRA could have led to.
Hell it allowed the government to block the release of an independently produced film, by the group Citizens United. It's crazy that anyone could think that's ok.
Just to be fair, the people most invested in destroying campaign finance reform (the Cato folks) have been pretty good when it comes to SOPA.
Of course, I'd say the people they serve are are quite happy to ignore them when it's convenient for the court aristocracy, but I can't see them as guilty of any obvious inconsistencies.
I think Citizens United was decided correctly, and while I support stronger protection of IP, I think SOPA is written too broadly.
I see a big distinction between putting out an original movie that mentions a candidate (the issue in Citizens United) and building a website to distribute other people's movies (the issue in SOPA).
Edit to clarify: distribute other people's movies without their permission.
