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?