Judge Rules Political Robocalls Are Protected By First Amendment (onthewire.io) 191
Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed. The decision came in a case in Arkansas, where political robocalls had been illegal for more than 30 years. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Leon Holmes ruled that banning political robocalls amounts to an infringement of free speech protections and also constitutes prior restraint of speech. Political campaigns have been using robocalls for decades, and some states have sought to ban them, arguing that they are intrusive and violate recipients' privacy. In the Arkansas case, the state attorney general put forward both of these arguments, and also argued that the calls can tie up phone lines, making them unusable in an emergency. Holmes said in his decision that there was no evidence that political robocalls prevent emergency communications, and also said that the Arkansas statute should have banned all robocalls, not just commercial and political ones. "The statute at issue here imposes a content-based restriction on speech; it is not one of the rare cases that survives strict scrutiny. The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest," Holmes wrote.
New name for "Airplane Mode" (Score:2)
Sanity Mode.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet America you do not call the phones, the phones call you.
Re: (Score:3)
Mr Number filters out political robocalls. Innovation strikes again!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I simply don't answer calls if I don't recognize the number.
But doesn't that involve getting up from your dinner and going to look at the phone display? (if it's the land line or you don't keep tyour mobile on the dinner table - not everyone does). Not so simple.
Vote with your vote (Score:2, Insightful)
I subscribe intentionally to the do not call list with all my numbers. Some political hack calls me I simply won't vote for them. I have a good memory for people that show me no respect or courtesy so will go out of my way to vote for their opponents.
The power of the Boycott works for Politicians too!
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe my number to the DNC list too - and I get multiple calls a week.
With politicians free to robo-call you, I can almost guarantee that you will have no-one left to vote for come November.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the DNC but I went to watch another party politician speak and "for security reasons" you had to get tickets which were free. Part of that process was supplying a phone number and email since i did it online. That put my name, email, and phone number on their list.
So I didn't exactly sign up for their phone list. I just wanted to hear what a candidate actually had to say verses what the news filters and claims he said.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Simply tell them, since it's shooting or hanging this time around anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether a crook or a clown rules you, you originally wanted to make your decision based on the flip of a coin, but now it's going to be which party is going to piss you off via pestering phone calls less.
And the length of the call also goes into this consideration.
Now that you know this, is there anything left you want to tell me?
Huh? (Score:2)
I think your translator broke right after your started your second sentence. The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote. People don't like that very much, but that is a fact. The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media. Again, that is factual.
I generally don't have Presidential candidates robo-calling, I have people at Congress/Senate or State level pestering me. Note that TF
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote
Sure, but let's not pretend that Trump was the friend of the Republican establishment and that they didn't want him taken down.
The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media.
Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact. I have grave doubts that the DNC really managed to do much of anything -- certainly nothing on the level of Ron Paul getting screwed in 2012. The fact is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Sorry, "Democratic Socialist," and more Democrats are more interested in a "mainstream" candidate than a socialist. Bernie Sanders had an extremely hard road uphill, and once Clinton got to the South (where few people like Bernie), it was over.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not pretend anything, I was simply clarifying facts since it appeared that GP made a false claim. I still can't comprehend what they really intended to say, so have to take the ACs translation of it as correct.
Speaking of pretending though, your doubts about the impact of cheating really mean nothing, as you start with a fabricated claim. California had several lawsuits being filed for voter fraud, with poll workers instructed to give Bernie voters invalid ballots among other allegations. That is o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How? More than half of the robocalls I receive are recorded messages, and if there's any interaction it's by touchtone.
Re: (Score:2)
So make it equally first amendment to block them (Score:2, Insightful)
My phone line does not have to accept every call made to it.
Re:So make it equally first amendment to block the (Score:5, Informative)
It is "equally first amendment" to block them. The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all. The Judge didn't say you can't block them because first amendment, he said you can't single them out to be blocked based on their content.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all.
The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state. Serving the interests of the citizens and not the politicians.
Re:So make it equally first amendment to block the (Score:5, Informative)
The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state.
The state could have accomplished the same end by banning all robocalls that the recipient didn't specifically sign up for. Since that wouldn't be based on the content of the calls it wouldn't be subject to this particular 1st Amendment challenge. By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.
You are aware that there are significant bans on political speech that have not been found to be unconstitutional, I hope. And specific rules for political speech that do not apply to other types. Also not unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.
Using this judge's backwards reasoning, that is a violation of the 1st amendment and said exemptions must be shat upon.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.
Political speech has always been treated differently, from day 1. Unlike commercial speech, political speech is granted specific leeway in the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
Part of speech is being able to make it. Blocking robocalls is similar to banning speech in the town square. The phone is specifically designed for people to contact you so you do not have to be in some public place.
So if you do not want robo calls, lobby your state to make a law that all robo calls must register the originating number 24 hours in advance and that telephone providers have to allow customers the option to block them by default if they desire. This now goes from blocking speech in
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking robocalls is similar to banning speech in the town square. The phone is specifically designed for people to contact you so you do not have to be in some public place.
Are you nuts or was that just a wind-up? I can walk away from a town square but I cannot walk away from my phone or house. My phone installation was not designed to hear public announcements, it was designed for me to talk to friends and to businesses I want to deal with..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what your point is. You do not have to listen to the speech. Just hang up.
It is not "just hang up". It is also "just" having to interrupt your meal, "just" having got out from under your car that you were repairing (and cleaned your hands up), "just" having come in from the garden where you were digging a flower bed, "just" having to break off a conversation with some visitors, "just " being woken up from sleep you happen to need it in the day. I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you just didn't think about it. This is a straightforwards and obvious ruling, there is nothing "backwards" about it.
And they don't analyze it that way, adding and subtracting the State and Federal laws from each other. Each has to be legal on its own. The Federal law does not matter here. The State law simply isn't allowed to try to plug the loophole (that Congress intentionally included) in the Federal law by examining the content. If they want to regulate it, they have to do in a content-neutral way;
Re: (Score:2)
By the judge's logic if I can rent a robot to follow and berate you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is for political speech and not for commerce.
If someone followed you with a robot 24/7, that would eventually become "harassment." A single robocall from a candidate does not fall under the banner of harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. Set up a robocaller to call a random number from a list of political parties and representatives that use robocallers to give them a message that they suck and their use of rocoballers means you wont use them.
It'll be a short list, so a good parallel caller with access to multiple lines should be able to keep most of the senate permanently engaged.
DOS the fuckers.
Re: (Score:3)
So make it equally first amendment to block them. My phone line does not have to accept every call made to it.
This. I should be able to set up a "EULA" on my phone, my mailbox, my email account and whatever else communication channel I have indicating what forms/groups/types of contact I will accept. Anyone wishing to contact me would have to self-certify that they belong to a category I'll accept. Then you can make it an offense to lie, just like on immigration forms.
Autodialers (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how autodailers were illegal when it was just hackers using them to poke around.
Compelling *STATE* interest? (Score:2)
Not to mention the bit implying that a compelling *state* interest would justify abridging the First Amendment.
I mean, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right, shouldn't abridging it require a compelling *public* interest? That is, protecting the rights of other citizens, as is the case in the classic example of yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If a compelling state interest is sufficient to abridge our constitutional rights, then those rights exist only so long as they don't interfere with the s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.
Yes, there are many restrictions on speech. You cannot for example stand out someone's bedroom at 3am and engage in "free speech" with a megaphone. Free speech is not the same as freedom to impose it on other people.
As someone who's been working from home for the last two weeks, I can assure you that robo calls (not political but it ma
Re:Autodialers (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how autodailers were illegal when...
But that is exactly what the judge is pointing out. The judge is quite correct here, it is a simple matter and the law is invalid on its face.
If they banned ALL unsolicited autodialers -- which many states do -- then it is constitutional. Prohibiting the activity for everyone is proper.
By banning ONLY political autodialers it becomes a limitation on a specific type of speech. Limiting only a group of people or a specific type of speech is generally improper.
This raises a good question (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean that robots are protected under the U.S. Constitution?
Can they vote for the candidate they are calling for?
Re: (Score:3)
Does this mean that robots are protected under the U.S. Constitution?
Can they vote for the candidate they are calling for?
Well, I guess that means our next President will be . . . Bender!
Re:This raises a good question (Score:5, Funny)
The 2020 Presidential Candidates and slogans:
The Republican Party: Google Now - "Make America great NOW!"
The Democrat Party: Siri Applegate - "I will lead, you will follow!"
The Green Party: Amazon Echo - "Every day is Prime day!"
The Libertarian Party - Microsoft Cortana - "Vote for me and get Windows 12 Free!"
The Anti-Privacy Party - Facebook Chatbot - "All your base are belong to us"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess that means our next President will be . . . Bender!
He wasn't born in the U.S.though nor is he 35 or older.
Re: (Score:2)
Being born in the USA isn't a requirement. Ask John McCain or Ted Cruz.
Re: (Score:2)
Robots are people. Just below corporations but well above Homo Sapiens.
Re: (Score:2)
But some robots are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Results just in
32bit Party: 4,294,967,295
64bit Party: 18,446,744,073,709,551,615
Floating point party: 3.402823 x10^38
Clear victory by the floating point party but there is some suspicion of voter fraud as they appear to be unable to provide an exact vote count.
Re: (Score:2)
I was one of the 256 voters who voted 8bit. The system is rigged, I just know it. It's somewhere in the numbers...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight! There's something fishy, I couldn't have been the only one who voted for the Binary Party!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they call for a recount?
No silly (Score:2)
Judges and logic, always a riot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd require that those robocalls be done by humans for it to count as "free speech". If we go by this judge's ruling, then, hey, putting a tape recorder on the assembly floor would be an acceptable fillibuster strategy, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Under this logic, the government could bad YouTube vidoes it doesn't like.
Speech is and should be protected. Listening should not be.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, that was my first thought. But I thought about it a bit more.
The issue is that recorded speech is protected as well. If I make a video saying that a certain politician is a vile person for whatever reasons--assuming that I'm not committing slander--just because I'm doing it "live" doesn't mean it's not protected speech. The government can't ban me from distributing that video just because of it's contents.
Like others said, the judge is right. Unfortunately.
To use a right-wing slogan, "freedo
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment ... no, sorry. (Score:5, Informative)
A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed.
It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience.
The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest
Wouldn't it be novel if a law only had to show that it advances a compelling CITIZEN interest?
Re:First Amendment ... no, sorry. (Score:5, Informative)
You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls. That made it's restriction content based, something that's a big no-no. It is still may be perfectly legal to ban ALL robocalls you just can't police them by content.
I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly. When the fed's banned robo-calling the politicians exempted themselves. Someone should challenge the federal law and get it tossed because it also uses content as a decider. The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls.
How does that change what I said about political calls being subject to the DNC? And you might note that the DNC exemptions are based on content. If you ban "all but X", then you've made a just as unconstitutional limit on speech as allowing "X", under this ruling.
I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly.
You miss an important distinction. Wait, that's what I just said -- "It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list". But I missed an important distinction.
The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.
What color is the sky on your planet? It is blue here on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience."
Exactly. Except it should be illegal for *ALL* robo calls to *ANY* phone, including land lines. This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with invading my privacy, wasting my time, and being an unnecessary annoyance. They can send through the US mail if they want to contact me.
Re: (Score:2)
I receive robocalls that I welcome. I'm signed up for the robocall if my city declares a snow emergency. I get some robocalls from my health care providers.
Re: (Score:2)
And I receive useless robocalls from the City about what THEY think are "important" notices (which are not) and found out they refuse to have a way for citizens to opt out (and remember, I have an UNLISTED NUMBER). I finally determined the City uses a third party system and went to THAT company and they said the City didn't pay for an opt-out option! But because I was making so much noise, they manually took my number out of the system.
I can't stand robocallers and I think their use should be not just ill
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that some people want them and some don't. The solution is not a binary one of allowing all or denying all. Just make operators of robocalls register an originating number and allow the customer to block those numbers and allow exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
I receive robocalls that I welcome. I'm signed up for the robocall if my city declares a snow emergency. I get some robocalls from my health care providers.
I have windows and can see if it is snowing. Why TF would you need robot calls from a health care provider? Serious question; my mother has visiting health care and I cannot think of a scenario where a robot call would be needed.
Re: (Score:2)
They already regulate everything based on content you fucking nitwit.
Political calls are exempted from the do-not-call list due to their content.
Re: (Score:2)
absolutely false, those in government do not prioritize the citizens interests and governments become both self serving and the tools of elite over time.
What's his phone number (Score:2)
Someone should organize the "Do Not Call" political party and put him on a hourly loop with vitally important messages.
Not a great headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no technical difference between the front door of your home and your phone outside the neccesity to be in a specific location. They are all points of contact in which you can ignore, hang up or slam the door shut, or engage the person trying to contact you. In a sense, outside of being inconvenient at times, it is little different than post mail.
If you told politicians they couldn't knock on your door or send you mail, would they have standing to complain? The bottom line is that if you have a mea
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with such a law would be that some robocalls are legitimate and useful. For example, when my son's elementary school robocalls everyone to say that school is closing early. That's really important!
It didn't ban just political calls though (Score:2)
Free speech != right to be heard (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech is not the right to blast your message into someones bedroom at four in the morning. It is also not the right to break into your house and talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner. And it is also, therefore, not the right to break into your house electronically (using a phone) to talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.
IANAL, but I understood that the charitable calls could already be banned (by placement on the user's DNC list), but not politcal ones (which cannot be put on DNC lists). So this state tried to close that loophole by specifically banning political calls, thus making everything level. This judge said that you cannot discriminate against a particular type of call (although those who made the CNC list rules did), and presumable he, like the state, did not have the power to overturn the rule that politicians
Re: (Score:2)
a person may pay for and erect his soapbox any place .... and speak his piece. He may not force you to listen.
Trouble is there are people arguing (even here) that you are not forced to listen to the phone call either - you can hang up.
However the robot call has obliged you to stop what you are doing (possibly hanging wallpaper) and go to the phone (in case it's your daughter in trouble again). So a better analogy would be the soap box guy dragging you to in front of his soap box, but allowing you to leave after hearing a few words.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:You have the right to speak but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.
Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)
Time to close those loopholes.
Legal theory -vs- reality (Score:2)
This is where legal theory and practical reality are colliding.
* It does not make rational sense that we allow commercial companies to use robocalls for advertising.
* It does make rational sense that my child's school can robocall the parents if there is an unexpected early dismissal.
Back when commercial robocalls were allowed, people were inundated with calls. The dinner time advertisement recorded call was a regular event in our house during the 80s and 90s. Even now, where it is mostly illegal, sometim
Stupid $%^#&@ Clueless Judges (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid $%^#&@ Clueless Judges (Score:5, Informative)
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
I did read the article, thanks. I maintain that my phone is not a public forum. The underpinning of the judge's opinion seemed to be that it is. So, I say again, my phone is line is mine. It not your right, or anyone else's to robocall me, at any hour, for any purpose of your choosing. Therefore, it is fine for the state to come along and ban robocalls as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is a phone private? Looking back at their invention, they were never private. This is the most private they've been with the advent of some level of call blocking... and even that is clearly being stonewalled by the big telecom powers, because it would trivial to implement. If debt collectors can't call you, that's billions of dollars in lost debt bundling and reselling scams. Like 95% of people were in the phone book just a few years ago, many still are. It was never a private infrasturcture. There was the concept of a 'private line', but that just means one that you don't give the number away in order to try to not get calls. It's not like anybody promised you that you'd never get calls. You were in no way guaranteed or sold privacy as you suggest it. All numbers are basically open to be called. That's how the technology works. You can wish you phone was private. You can refer to it as your 'private line', but that doesn't mean it's not a giant public routing network with no real permissions.. because that's what it is. It's not about you having some right to a private phone line. You don't. You don't own any of the phone network, you have to sacrifice at least some level of privacy there. It's also not really a secure network and that's how it's sold. There is no block all calls but the ones I want option that I have ever seen a phone company offer. Only now with smartphones have we been given that option and it's often hidden away or underdeveloped because the result is lost revenue for banks.
Damn but that was a fine bit of sophistry. Completely beside the point, however. My phone, which rings in my house, is mine and it is not part of some great, virtual public square that therefore qualifies politician's robocalls as protected free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody I know already does this.
Call coming in that's not in your address book? To voicemail it goes.
With Google Voice transcripts, I don't even have to listen to them... DELETED.
Let's Call Him (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hi! I'm a robocaller! I'm just calling to let you know that this message is free speech and there's nothing you can do about it! Nyah nyah nyah!"
I would argue that "what constitutes free speech" itself definitely falls under the category of "political messages". So let's just all robocall him with that message roughly every 3 seconds, see if he gets the message?
Registered phone numbers? (Score:3)
Even if political robocalls are protected, shouldn't there at least be some provision to have all robocaller phone number registered? The idea would be to allow people to a) block them if the so choose b) prevent 'political' [insert product here] robocalls?
Oh, for the days of analog... (Score:2)
Thing like this do make me pine for the days of actual switched circuits; when an airhorn, or even a really good whistle, could send enough signal and generate a loud enough noise to cause pain to the person on the other end, especially if they were wearing a headset. Yes, I know we're talking about robo-callers here. But they're almost always solicitations such that some keypress or another will connect you to someone in the organization calling you.
Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
That judge just pretty much declared my phone to be a public place, in other words, I am under no obligation to pay for it, it's tax funded now. Yay!
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it does feel reasonable for you to invoice any political party that spams you without your consent, costing you money.
Obviously your invoice will include a charge for your time, and eventually the small claims court fees you're incurring to enforce payment.
Find that judge's home phone number... (Score:2)
And get it put on every spam list.
NO. NO. NO. (Score:2)
Having political opinion shoved down your throat as fact is the same thing as a street evangelist following you around with a loudhailer. It might be free speech but it is HARASSMENT when you are clearly walking away with NO INTENTION of listening.
No. I'll go one step further. It's like a penis. It's all good having religion or a political opinion because it shows at least some awareness of the world outside your immediate bubble, and you should be rightly proud of your wang, but the SECOND you start shovin
What the actual fuck?! (Score:2)
Let me be one of many to point out that robots are not people. Politicians... well, they are lower than robots in my book, but fine, if one of them wants to call me *personally*, I'll tell them everything I think about them.
And more importantly, the 1st amendment bars *Congress* from limiting speech. The federal do-not-call list is *opt-in*. Which means it's *I* who expresses the desire to limit speech I hear. Totally my right to scream "nananana, cannot hear ya" any time I want! Nothing to do with
Free speech? (Score:2)
I'm here to announce that if I get a robo call from a political candidate, I will under no circumstance vote for that person.
I encourage everyone else to do the same.
If your opponent starts making fake robo calls to trick me into not voting for you, I guess you should have tried harder to ban their use.
Later suckers!
The abortions = nazis judge... (Score:2)
That one. [wikipedia.org]
And (Score:4)
Of course not... (Score:2)
"...no evidence that political robocalls prevent emergency communications..."
Of course not... everyone who could complain died in the fires that weren't put out, or before the could successfully call for an ambulance to save them from their heart attack, or because their phone rang while they were hiding under the bed as the killer searched their room while they were waiting to press "send" on their 911 call...
Robocall all the Politians! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? First it's illegal to hang them, then to hang up on them... this is getting WAY out of hand!
Re: (Score:2)
Great, good that you're here. I am doing a survey on how fast assholes can run. Thank you for your participation! *cocks gun*
Re: (Score:2)
Most of all it requires public space.
I can declare that in my house I don't want to hear duck jokes. Why? Because it's my house. My house, my rules, don't like them, get the FUCK out! Government cannot demand from me that I allow you to tell duck jokes in my house. Government's right to demand that anyone can say what they want ends right at where my private property starts.
They must not keep you from telling duck jokes in your home, or on the street, and neither do I have the right to keep you from doing s