The following are editorial opinions from newspapers from around the world which may be of interest to Royal Gazette readers.

The Times Union, Albany, New York, on campaign contributions and the Supreme Court.

So contributions to political campaigns, no matter how large, are ultimately about free speech, right? That, at least, was the reasoning in a groundbreaking Supreme Court decision earlier this year that said there was no real difference between contributions by corporations and those by individuals. Both were found to have a constitutional right to give to the candidates and causes of their choice.

The ramifications, we fear, will be that corporations and other special interests essentially will be able to buy the elections of the candidates they prefer and wield undue influence over the positions those politicians subsequently take. ...

Let's at least require that corporations tell us whose money and interests are behind those expensive political ad campaigns. Let's have the high rollers, and even the CEOs, appear on TV and radio to reaffirm their approval of their messages, much as the political candidates themselves are required to do ...

It's interesting to note that the opponents of even modest limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending have long argued that the best, and fairest, way to address the vexing issue of money in politics is disclosure. Let the people know who makes these contributions, to whom and for how much.

In the absence of tougher laws, let's at least remember that disclosure is a two-way street — and have more of it ...

The Portland (Maine) Press Herald, on the US Supreme Court's decision on free speech cases:

The US Supreme Court has taken on another free speech case, further defining its limits in a period of technological explosion.

Last year, the court decided that corporations had free speech rights that could not be limited in the form of campaign finance spending caps.

Earlier this month, it struck down a federal law that banned the distribution of videos that showed animal cruelty.

Next up is an appeal of a California law that prohibits the sale and possession of ultra-violent video games by minors.

This is an area where this free speech court should find that it is appropriate to limit free speech.

The court should be able to distinguish between its other decisions. The Citizen United case dealt with political speech which should have the highest protection. The animal cruelty case dealt with videos distributed to adults who were not themselves involved in any illegal activity.

The court has already upheld laws that prohibit minors from possession pornography, alcohol and tobacco and should make the same distinctions in this case. Although there is well-established law prohibiting children from having sexually explicit material, there is very little around violence.

That is unfortunate, because exposure to extreme, realistic violence, especially in a video game in which the player takes the lead role, desensitises children and creates a false impression that the behavior is normal. States should have the ability to limit children's access to such games.

Even a court that has taken a broad view of freedom of speech rights should see that this is an example of where even a fundamental right can rightly be limited.