Would it be any less censorship if we passed a law that said you cannot criticize the government before midnight or after 4:00 a.m.? That's what we used to do with "adult"-oriented programming because it threatened the morals of children. Maybe we should do the same thing with speech that threatens the power of incumbents?

"The notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero declared after the ruling.

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, said the ruling is "the most significant change in the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize a member of Congress."

In one of those rare when-pigs-fly moments, they're both right.

Again, I'm not against the ruling because it's censorship. I'm against the ruling because it is precisely the kind of censorship the Constitution is supposed to limit to the maximum extent possible.

The folks who exclaim that banning cigarette advertising to kids is censorship are right, but at least there's an argument to be had over whether keeping kids off cigarettes is a legitimate state interest.

But political speech is what the First Amendment is about; it's what it was intended to protect. Remember: the First Amendment says Congress can't even "abridge" free speech. Abridge means to trim or diminish, several rungs below "censor."

But that doesn't matter. Apparently, we've spent so much time using the First Amendment to defend stuff the founders would have had no problem censoring that we've forgotten what it was truly designed to defend. Shame on us all.