A friend writes to note the striking contrast in the way the Chief Justice views the “reasonable” interpretation of the ambiguous expression in today’s two Free Speech Clause cases:
From Wisconsin Right to Life: “Because WRTL’s ads may reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate, they are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy,” the Chief wrote. In defining what qualifies as “express advocacy,” “the court should give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.”
From Morse: : ”The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.”