Stanley Fish continues his analysis of Citizens’ United by (not unsurprisingly) explaining that 99% of his first column did not attempt to take a side–rather he was explaining the intractable differences in the 2 camp’s visions of the First Amendment.
This time around, he moves to teach some of the core First Amendment issues, mainly to point out the cases under which the Court has seen fit to regulate speech (and why we need to do so, even though “Congress shall make no law”).
If you missed media law class, and want to know a few tidbits of how our courts have constructed First Amendment jurisprudence, give it a read. If you’re hungry for more, I can recommend some books in comments.