On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued perhaps its most significant First Amendment pronouncement of the decade in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Led by Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, the Court did something bold and principled for a change, rather than going along with the tendency of Congress and the executive branch to whittle away at the First Amendment and smother free speech in bureaucracy.

Sadly, though, the Court was fractured 5-4. And in the days following the ruling the reaction of the country, including the news media, has been depressingly fractured, too.

At issue in the case was a film titled Hillary: The Movie. Produced in 2008 by the nonprofit corporation Citizens United, it was a critical, documentary-style look at then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Citizens United wanted to make the film available to cable TV subscribers prior to the presidential primary in which Clinton was a candidate. But under the “McCain-Feingold” campaign reform law and the FEC’s bureaucratic regulations, Citizens United could have been hit with civil and criminal penalties for airing its political point of view. According to the law, a corporation could not air on TV any message that even “referred to” a candidate for federal office within the 30 days preceding a primary. Believing such line-drawing is not the role of government, Citizens United challenged the law.

In a nicely reasoned opinion, Justice Kennedy reminded the nation, “Premised on a mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” And there was no compelling justification for disfavoring and suppressing independent political expression simply because it came from an organization in corporate form. There was no evidence that such expression would corrupt public officials or destroy the integrity of elections. So not only was the “electioneering” provision of McCain-Feingold effectively struck down, but now highly suspect is virtually any state or federal law that attempts to muffle the political expression of corporations or unions or other associations of citizens.

But this should not be news. This is basic First Amendment principle that should be so boldly recognized more often by our courts.

Unfortunately, though, a sort of hysteria has erupted following the Citizens United ruling. Many commentators and organizations expressed fear that corporate views now would take over politics and elections. Such fear is aimed in the wrong direction. The fear should be of suppression, not of speech.

Even The New York Times editorialized against the Court’s ruling. The Times said the First Amendment “assigned rights” to certain persons and groups and that corporations were not among them.

No. The rights are not assigned. They are “unalienable.” Is that concept not at the core of the Declaration of Independence? The First Amendment’s focus in not on who has rights; it’s on what the government has no authority to do.

And consider: If the McCain-Feingold restriction had been upheld against Citizens United, what would prevent Congress from passing another statute prohibiting The New York Times and other major newspapers (also corporations) from editorializing for or against candidates in the month preceding an election?

In just a matter of weeks, Congress in February passed a bipartisan “economic stimulus package” featuring tax rebates to spark the badly sagging U.S. economy. The one-time tax break is a very short-term fix, if that. The bigger, long-term issue is America’s eroding stature in the global marketplace.

So what’s really needed is an intellectual stimulus package — something to re-invigorate the nation’s imagination, inquisitiveness and experimentation. Giving some tax money back is nice but not enough to accomplish this. No, what we need is for government to give some liberty back. Don’t just soften the tax bite. Curtail the stifling influence of Big Brother the censor.

Here’s my suggested start for a 2008 intellectual stimulus package:

1. Accord free expression to students. Correct the uncertainty created by recent Supreme Court rulings; extend clear and reasonable freedom-of-expression rights to students at public high schools and colleges.

2. Fully protect truthful advertising. Dump the commercial speech doctrine that treats sponsored messages as second class under the First Amendment. Get government out of the buiness of trying to engineer what we hear from consumer-products companies.

3. Open up political discourse. Repeal all the arbitrary restrictions on political expenditures by individuals or corporations.

4. Stop dictating broadcast content. A governmental system for orderly allotment of the broadcast spectrum is one thing. But attempting to engineer and censor content is something else. It’s stifling, counter-productive, and insulting.

5. Pass a national shield law for journalists. Government is too tempted to issue subpoenas to the news media, treating the “fourth estate” like an arm of law enforcement.

In January President Bush, in the face of a recession, publicly advocated for an “economic stimulus package” of tax relief to jolt the ailing economy. Congress acted with relative swiftness, and Bush signed the $168-billion package in February.

Sure would be nice if government would act with similar haste to also deliver an intellectual-stimulus package — something to clear the way for more creative and robust discourse. Such discourse is at a premium, with mounting and seemingly intractable problems at home and with an increasingly competitive global marketplace. It would be a golden investment in the future.

Here’s four easy steps that would head things in the right direction:

1. Enact bold legislation to clarify and safeguard the free-speech rights of students. Recent court rulings have left students’ First Amendment rights too foggy and compromised. A habit of lively discourse should begin early in life.

2. Repeal all restrictions on political contributions and expenditures — by individuals or corporations. These arbitrary limitations are not serving to improve the quality or fairness of public debate, or of campaigns. They most certainly do, however, limit free expression.

3. Repeal all restraints on truthful commercial speech. So long as advertising is not harmfully deceptive, there is no valid justification for Big Brother’s burdening commercial expression in ways that would be shocking if applied to social or political speech.

4. Enact a national “shield law” for the news media. This would help ensure that news organizations can investigate and report stories aggressively — without diverting resources and jeopardizing sources in the process of answering government subpoenas.

Every now and then it’s good to reread the Declaration of Independence, that most eloquent testament to personal liberty and independent thought — and to government’s proper role as a protector of these rights. This morning I found myself reflecting, once again, on Jefferson’s critical words about the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are natural rights of all individuals, equally. And that simple fact also necessarily moderates the rights. A person cannot exercise his or her liberty of thought and action to the point of preventing others from doing the same. In a society, there can be no liberty to assault or otherwise directly victimize others. Yet on the other hand, in a free society persons cannot be considererd victims by the mere fact that they are offended or made uncomfortable by others’ thoughts and actions. While out and about, there can be no right to a perfectly agreeable environment.

These are bedrock principles, echoed in our First Amendment law of free expression. Early cases recognized that speech could be prohibited where it would likely result in direct, physical harm to others, for example. Cases going back some 50 years also made it clear, however, that government is not empowered to proscribe expression on the ground that it is politically unpopular, or harsh, or unrefined.

But in recent years there has been an increasing tendency for constituents to elicit their public officials’ help to silence their neighbors and control the marketplace of expression. And government has too often been quick to comply, enacting restrictions, sometimes with a green light from the courts. Whether it’s corporate political expression that some fear too persuasive, broadcast images that some deem too “indecent,” or flag-burning demonstrations that some consider too insolent, government regulation for such reasons poses great danger to the core concept of a nation built on liberty.

As the Supreme Court begins its 2007-08 term we can only hope it finds a case to redeem itself from the thud and intellectual debris that ended the last term in Morse v. Frederick. That’s the case in which student Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner with the attention-grabbing words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as Olympic Torch Relay passed in front of his Juneau, Alaska, public high school. Students were given time away from class to attend the parade, but in no other respect was it a school project or event. Nevertheless, the principal swiftly confiscated the banner and then suspended Frederick because, she said, the message celebrated illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and ruled the principal didn’t violate Frederick’s First Amendment freedom. In the Court’s written opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted Frederick’s motives and the nature of his message and the problem of drug use among young people, as if any of those should determine First Amendment rights. He also noted that “school principals have a difficult job” and deserve some latitude to make on-the-spot decisions. But while that’s certainly true, it’s odd that the Court wouldn’t also discuss Frederick’s liberty and the increasingly difficult job of exercising it in today’s society.

Morse v. Frederick made a further mess of student free-speech law. Clarity is needed both for student speakers and for public school officials. But more broadly, the case raises an alarming prospect: that this Court will work harder to protect government institutions than to safeguard the “unalienable right” of expressive liberty that private individuals and organizations should enjoy.