First Amendment Constraints Don't Apply To Private Platforms, Supreme Court Affirms (theverge.com) 337
In a case that could have potential implications for social media, the Supreme Court has ruled that a nonprofit running public access channels isn't bound by governmental constraints on speech. "The case, which the conservative wing of the court decided in a split 5-4 ruling, centered around a Manhattan-based nonprofit tasked by New York City with operating public access channels in the area," reports The Verge. "The organization disciplined two producers after a film led to complaints, which the producers argued was a violation of their First Amendment speech rights. The case turned on whether the nonprofit was a 'state actor' running a platform governed by First Amendment constraints." From the report: In a decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative justices ruled that the First Amendment constraints didn't apply to the nonprofit, which they considered a private entity. Providing a forum for speech wasn't enough to become a government actor, the justices ruled. Nowhere is the internet or social media discussed in the ruling, but the idea that the decision could be used to penalize social media companies was raised by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The groups argued that too broad of a decision could prevent other private entities like YouTube and Twitter from managing their platforms by imposing new constraints them. The Internet Association, a trade group, said last year that such a decision could mean the internet "will become less attractive, less safe and less welcoming to the average user." But today's decision seems to assuage those concerns. The liberal justices on the court, in a dissenting ruling, argued instead that the terms under which the nonprofit ran the channels for the city should have bound it to First Amendment constraints. The nonprofit, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other."
Why do we need comment titles. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that even though the private company itself isn't violating the first amendment that the government is by using that company to provide services.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get em.. (Score:2)
It will have to be by the collusion and monopoly laws.
And i bet there is quite a big collusion case to be made, given even payment processors are involved, so you can't even start to make a competitor with free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
And i bet there is quite a big collusion case to be made, given even payment processors are involved, so you can't even start to make a competitor with free speech.
This load of shit gets trotted out constantly. The reality is, there are plenty of varyingly filthy places on the internet, where one can be as homophobic, hateful, bigoted, and racist as they want. 4chan comes to mind.
The problem is, these people aren't satisfied being confined to their little cesspools and want to spew their vitriol on Facebook/Twitter/Google's dime. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. And if you believe it does, I'd like to visit your home and use it to host my "Any Democrat 2020" part
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the several cases where people tried to create competing platforms, just to have the monetization shut down by things such as mastercard.
There is a massive collusion in that tiny space in california, and while they're doing "nazi hunting" now, they might just expand the definition of nazi to mean "everyone trying to compete with us".
Give megacorporations power like those, and watch they use those powers, even against you, specially against you.
Fine, but lose telecom common carrier status (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't argue on the one hand that we are not liable because we do not exercise editorial control and then on the other hand silence individuals because your organization does not like their message. If they want liability their editorial control needs to be limited to the legally defined exceptions to the first amendment. Incitement to imminent and reasonably expected violence, etc. Note this is actual violence, not the "violence" of someone's feelings got hurt.
Re:Fine, but lose telecom common carrier status (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, if the 1st amendment does not apply to private non-government entries, and those entities do engage in censorship or limiting free speech, then remove their telecommunications common carrier status (or is it some other status) that shields them from liability regarding what is posted to their systems.
They weren't running a forum where anyone could post. An analogy here would be to an editor at a newspaper firing a junior reporter. The newspaper has free speech, but that doesn't mean the reporter can publish whatever he/she wishes.
Common carrier states (or some other status) is a separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, if the 1st amendment does not apply to private non-government entries, and those entities do engage in censorship or limiting free speech, then remove their telecommunications common carrier status (or is it some other status) that shields them from liability regarding what is posted to their systems.
They weren't running a forum where anyone could post. An analogy here would be to an editor at a newspaper firing a junior reporter. The newspaper has free speech, but that doesn't mean the reporter can publish whatever he/she wishes. Common carrier states (or some other status) is a separate issue.
I am making a larger point since this decision can establish precedent beyond the narrow scope of this organization.
Re:Fine, but lose telecom common carrier status (Score:5, Informative)
Done. They're not common carriers. The vast majority of private entities, including social media companies, never were common carriers.
Yes you can. The communications decency act [eff.org] says that you cannot treat a private entity on the internet (an "information service provider") as if they were the speaker of information that is submitted and displayed entirely at the direction of a user (an "information content provider"). "This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."
It's been that way on TV [hollywoodreporter.com], in newspapers [hollywoodreporter.com], and billboards [ajc.com], so what is your basis for saying that you can't argue that only in connection with the Internet?
That's not the law. And that law's not going to change any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
then remove their telecommunications common carrier status
Err laws do not work like that. Being a common carrier or not doesn't somehow magically make you "the government", you know that pesky little thing the 1st amendment is actually restricted to. I mean the first 5 words are "Congress shall make no law".
Re: (Score:2)
then remove their telecommunications common carrier status
Err laws do not work like that. Being a common carrier or not doesn't somehow magically make you "the government", you know that pesky little thing the 1st amendment is actually restricted to. I mean the first 5 words are "Congress shall make no law".
No, but asking the government for immunity from liability does open the door to being restricted. Quid pro quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where to put the line, between "sticks and stones" and "words", between "opinion" and "slander", etc. We have a lengthy legal tradition that has drawn some good lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is fine, but it cannot be a "workaround" for the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, again... I'm merely talking about this because it's a real problem. Serious harm can and is done to others under the guise of free speech. People need to think about these issues. The US government was set up in such a way that it can be updated as needed by the people. I'm not saying it's definite
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure physical violence can do a lot more damage to someone than words.
You know, breaking limbs, putting the person on a wheelchair forever, all sorts of terrible brain damages, and the old terrifying just plain killing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are dictators not yet born drooling at the thought of government getting the power to censor because brain scans see changes deemed "damage" from words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the bill or rights do not apply directly, but quid pro quo opens the door for essentially similar protections.
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is that you think that there is "the government," that these sites have to individually ask the Federal government for money, and that the states and localities that they do ask for specific tax breaks give a hoot about "the condition to respec
For a cake shop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Name one and support your argument for it. Facebook is essential and has gobbled up billions in public funding? Youtube? Puh-lease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I somehow missed the part where you retroactively changed the conditions to "or."
But then again you want to retroactively add conditions to local and state deals, so at least you're consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire content delivery/social media portion of the internet Is an oligopoly and have a common ideologial direction?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So sayeth Fox News, and Brietbart, and Gab, and 4chan, and...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Limbaugh [washingtonpost.com]! Not-very-openly rejecting anti-free-trade advertising until 2016, when suddenly he was forced to accept Trumpism or become irrelevant.
You got it wrong. (Score:2)
OTOH if you are a monopoly/oligopoly that has in practice near total control over a platform which is essential to advance and communicate on a private, professional, and political level
If you are a monopoly/oligopoly then you should be broken up per antitrust laws.
Scary ruling if taken to the next level (Score:5, Interesting)
The ruling says the government can make an end-run around its constitutional limits just by outsourcing the job to a third party.
Incorrect. (Score:2)
There are strict federal laws that exist to prevent precisely what you are suggesting.
Re:Scary ruling if taken to the next level (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The ruling (linked in the summary) actually addresses that point.
The producers argued that the exclusive contract with the government made it a state actor, but the court noted that a contract, exclusivity or granted monopoly is not enough to grant the state actor designation.
In fact the only applicable test is if the company is providing a service that is both traditionally and exclusively provided by government, which excludes almost everything.
It's not that hard ... (Score:2)
... to figure out.
Constitutional amendments simply reiterate the obvious back to the government.
For instance, the 2A, "shall not infringe," applies to the federal government. States can do a hell of a lot with that kind of latitude.
The 1st amendment forbids the government from suppressing free speech.
Libraries can demand essentially NO speech because a library is not the federal government.
The question posed here is simply, "is the non-profit the same as the federal government?"
Apparently it is, and isn't i
What the fsck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this was a 5-4 decision thanks to Trump's nominees. I know this is gonna catch me some flak but what the hell, I got Karma to burn: Are all you Free Speech Warriors gonna be there for the next election to vote against Trump over this? Or are you all just talk? If you are I guess that's Ok, You are Free Speech Warriors after all.
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is about to begin.
Social media was not responsible for every comment, image, cartoon, link, review, quote due to been utility like in the past.
As a publisher that owns everything all users did, the social media brand is now responsible?
Burning Man: Using 3rd party security to bypass 4t (Score:2)
Re:Non-profit sovereign entity (Score:4, Informative)
The 1st Amendment is what the government applies to itself, as I understand it.
Re: Non-profit sovereign entity (Score:2, Interesting)
So it doesn't apply to Google and Facebook either?....
Woohoo!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The People applied it to government when they created the Constitution, which creates the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the fuck are you talking about? Clearly you don't understand the issue.
See, the Constitution only applies to government ... you do net get a Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech on my property, and never have. I do not have any legal obligations to provide you with a platform for your free speech.
SCOTUS has basically said that the non-profit is essentially private property. Exactly the same as YouTube
Re:Non-profit sovereign entity (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I would say unconstitutional based on them being essential facilities in todays political climate.
NO. Do not give them that credibility. That is a huge tactical error. The problem here is exactly that they're allowed to pretend to be this. They're forcing themselves into a position they don't have the authority or the ethical fortitude to secure. Simply obviating the problem of this gross misbehavior by granting them this undeserved status will just make things massively worse for everyone except the advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^ This. What's to stop a government agency from farming out stuff to 'specially selected' non-profits so they can get away with violating people's rights?
Re: (Score:3)
What's to stop a government agency from farming out stuff to 'specially selected' non-profits so they can get away with violating people's rights?
The Supreme Court, who just published a big long decision explaining to you the details of how they decide that issue.
It will always come back to the part you hand-waved past; what exactly is the stuff that you refer to, and is it something that belongs to the Government? If they're "farming out" government functions or government property, then all the rules still apply. If the Government is simply regulating something that is not a government function or government property, then those rules never applied
Re:Non-profit sovereign entity (Score:5, Informative)
New York state law requires cable operators to set aside channels on their cable systems for public access. Those channels are operated by the cable operator unless the local government chooses to itself operate the channels or designates a private entity to operate the channels. New York City (the City) has designated a private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), to operate the public access channels on Time Warner’s cable system in Manhattan. Respondents DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a film critical of MNN to be aired on MNN’s public access channels. MNN televised the film. MNN later suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. The producers sued, claiming that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when it restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film. The District Court dismissed the claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion
The argument is whether this specific legal arrangement with the government falls under the first amendment, and apparently the answer is no. I don't entirely understand the details of this awkward legal arrangement, but you can read it in the summary I just posted.
This is different than the legal argument people have for Twitter or Facebook falling under the first amendment, which is that those web sites have become a kind of public town square, and thus must follow the first amendment. I have no idea if that is a valid argument or not, and know of no court cases related to that argument.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
However, if NY state law requires channels for public access then it would follow that these channels SHOULD adhere to the first amendment. My opinion is that the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly but I'm not surp
Re: (Score:3)
It starts off tedious just by being a form of non-endorsement. Rather than shut down a message, the "censorship" is in the form of not-carrying-it-ourselves regarding one certain instance of the message in one certain place.
That is, rather than a case of "I was censored" it's "you're obliged to carry this". Which I figure is still a 1stA concern, when the channel is a state one, for open channels.
I'm not sure it is. Genuinely uncertain. What's the interpretation of, say, an electronic highway sign? it's not
Re: (Score:3)
Its an 'interesting' argument - the first amendment is supposed to be about the government not limiting the speech of its citizens, but nowhere in the amendment does it say the government has to facilitate the speech of its citizens, and that seems to be the crux of this case...
Nowhere does the first amendment oblige the government to carry its citizens speech, so the ruling of the USSC seems to be correct in this instance. If the government limited publication avenues to only those it controlled, then tha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh boy. You've really missed the forest for the trees on this one, I'm sorry to say. The precedent this sets is that the government can just shell out its sins to a "private" organization of its choice, and then have it be above the law.
And I really don't get the weird conservative/liberal slant on this one. It's almost like the conservative justices *want* the obvious loopholes to be exploited.
Re: (Score:3)
This is different than the legal argument people have for Twitter or Facebook falling under the first amendment, which is that those web sites have become a kind of public town square, and thus must follow the first amendment. I have no idea if that is a valid argument or not, and know of no court cases related to that argument.
This answered that argument in a very over-the-top way. Twitter and Facebook wouldn't be bound by the first amendmant EVEN IF the government asked them to set up a public forum (which it never has). There is no way that there is an argument Twitter and Facebook are public squares, period, with this ruling being handed down.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way that there is an argument Twitter and Facebook are public squares, period, with this ruling being handed down.
That's the most unlawyerly answer I've ever heard.
Re: (Score:3)
Around 1980 people sued because shopping malls wouldn't let them march arouns inside and protest things, being private property.
They tried to get the Supreme Court to declare it so because these were the modern town square. The court wouldn't have it though.
Re: (Score:3)
They said that even with the local government asking them to build a public forum, that when push comes to shove, that forum is not a public forum because it's a private organization. I don't care how unlawyerly it seems, but the idea that these judges will then say that a private company with no entanglement to go
Re: (Score:2)
If a private company working at the behest of government is not bound by the first amendment, a private company working on it's own accord, without any encumbrance from government, will not be bound by the first amendment. That common fucking sense, something you seem to lack. The answer is still the same: Twitter and Facebook are not public
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the ruling (linked in the summary) the decision seems to hinge on the fact that in order for 1st Amendment rules to apply the service being provided has to have been traditionally and exclusively provided by the government (page 6).
The ruling points out that very few services meet this criteria and that providing cable TV channels isn't one of them, as it has neither traditionally nor exclusively been provided by government.
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment only applies to the Government not private (i.e. non-government) organizations. The problem here is that the non-profit was/is running a public forum for New York City and this blurs the lines of rights and responsibilities between those two actors.
The liberal justices argued that the "terms under which the nonprofit ran the channels for the city" made the non-profit a proxy for the city and, therefore, they were bound by the First Amendment. The conservative justices argued that sim
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
With that logic the government can hire a third party to run debates and trample on free speech.
The public access channel is government mandated and is therefor a private entity acting on behalf of the government.
SCOTUS knows jack shit about protecting liberty. The ruling is a total farce.
And you expected anything different from a "conservative"-majority Supreme Court?
Re: (Score:2)
And you'll expect something different when they (soon) rule that Twitter, etc. have to uphold free speech, while the liberal justices dissent?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the nonprofit is basically itâ(TM)s own nation, not bound by the constitution or US law?
No. The nonprofit is basically not the US government. You know that constitution thing that says "Congress shall make no law"? Maybe you should read it sometime, it's only 45 words long and everything you need to know about it as it applies to this case is in the first 5 words.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution also says nothing about the government being required to facilitate speech, just that they cannot abridge it through a law - they aren't abridging anything here, as there are other avenues for that speech to occur, just as a government agency is not required under the First Amendment to carry your blog content on their website...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is a combination of the 1st and 14th amendments in this case as it isn't about Congress but rather the government of NYC (or NY State).
Doesn't really matter as the Constitution just means whatever the current Supreme Court says it means. Lots of laws abridging speech have been passed by Congress and the Supreme Court has OKed some by creating a new catorgory, unprotected speech. Ranges from child porn to national security things.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the law requires the government provide a public access channel for the public to use to speak.
The government then hands management of that public access channel to a third party.
The third party then restrict speech on the public access channel designed to let people speak.
SCOTUS is wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Its more complicated than that (Score:2)
My property, my rules.
Yes, until you ask the government for immunity from liability for what people say on your platform. The government is free to set conditions to obtain that immunity, say respecting free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The government already granted that immunity [eff.org]. You want to rescind it. With a Democratic Party-held House and a Republican Party-held Senate, that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the loudest mouths in Congress to take away liability protection is a Republican, though.
His words on the subject are telling, because he basically said he wants to hurt facebook and twitter unless they self-censor the way the government likes.
Hopefully this nonsense gets to the SC which rules government may not censor by proxy and arm twisting. A reasonable law (on the surface) can be constitutionally invalid if the motivation is something forbidden like censorship.
The cake baker ruling was an exam
You got it wrong (Score:2)
My property, my rules.
No its my money, my rules. If its your property and your money then sure, government has no say. However when you want government money to fund your operations they are free to impose whatever conditions they choose, say respecting free speech. And you are free to decline those conditions and the government money.
Re:In seems backwards. (Score:5, Informative)
The conservative judges said "no 1a does not apply", ??? and the liberal judges said "1a should apply"????
This sounds backwards to me, regarding liberals, and conservatives. Can somebody please explain?
Thank you in advance.
The non-profit organization was/is running a public-access forum for the city (a government organization) and the liberal justices argued that the "terms under which the nonprofit ran the channels for the city" made the non-profit a proxy for the city and, therefore, they were bound by the First Amendment. The conservative justices argued that simply "providing a forum for speech wasn't enough to become a government actor".
Seems like both sides have valid points, but that this could have been better addressed by a better contract between the non-profit and city specifying the parties' rights and responsibilities more clearly/exactly -- unless they already did and the film producers simply didn't like how things turned out...
Re:In seems backwards. (Score:5, Interesting)
I could see possible legal shenanigans coming out of this in the future, where government agencies weasel out of Constitutional obligations/protections by outsourcing their work to private firms.
"Oh, I'm sorry, the Fifth Amendment does not apply here, because your interrogator is a Pinkerton employee."
Re: (Score:3)
The ruling does address this. The test is if the service is traditionally and exclusively performed by the government. Since policing can only be done by the government (it requires extraordinary rights not available to private citizens, such as the right to arrest and detail people) even if they outsource it to a private company it meets the requirement for constitutional protection.
In this case though providing a cable TV channel is hardly something the government traditionally or exclusively did. The pro
Re: (Score:3)
The non-profit organization was/is running a public-access forum for the city (a government organization) and the liberal justices argued that the "terms under which the nonprofit ran the channels for the city" made the non-profit a proxy for the city and, therefore, they were bound by the First Amendment. The conservative justices argued that simply "providing a forum for speech wasn't enough to become a government actor".
Seems like both sides have valid points, but that this could have been better addressed by a better contract between the non-profit and city specifying the parties' rights and responsibilities more clearly/exactly -- unless they already did and the film producers simply didn't like how things turned out...
The terms of the agreement between the government and the private entity should have no effect on the rights of the people. Otherwise it would be setting a precedent to a very dangerous loophole.
A local government could contract out policing and with a carefully crafted agreement deprive you of your 4th amendment rights. Or why not contract out the courts and make an end run around those pesky 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments? How about elections? Let a private party operate them and not worry about the
Re: (Score:2)
The terms of the agreement between the government and the private entity should have no effect on the rights of the people.
I agree. I simply meant that the agreement, properly written, should have clearly stated things and this case shouldn't have been necessary. Obviously it wasn't and/or things aren't as simple as they should be. Reading some other posts here seems to indicate that the latter definitely applies. Personally, I think the Conservative Justices got it wrong as the non-profit was apparently managing a public forum that was mandated by the City. If that's the case, the non-profit was definitely acting as a proxy f
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise it would be setting a precedent to a very dangerous loophole.
What if the government hires a private security firm to manage the town square?
Should the contractors be able to stop people from standing on soapboxes and speaking? After all, they aren't the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better analogy would be if the government tells a private corporation to set aside a block of land to act as the public town square. Your questions are still valid and still apply, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
the general argument of providing a forum for free speech of course doesn't make a private entity into a government actor
No, but this specific case sure does. They're providing THE forum for free speech that the GOVERNMENT is mandated to provide BY LAW, at the BEHEST OF THE GOVERNMENT, because the GOVERNMENT can't be bothered to fulfill what the LAW REQUIRES of them on their own.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps the government shouldn't be in the business of "providing forums" in the first place.
There are plenty of street corners, public parks, social media sites, billboards, etc. If you have an opinion to express, there are plenty of places to do so.
Why should the government be providing yet another forum, at taxpayer expense?
Now that this "free speech forum" can be legally censored, it is even more ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In seems backwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
The conservatives interpret it literally. Example: Second amendment doesn't ban Howitzers - you can own a Howitzer.
They had cannon in those days.
The liberals interpret it in context. Example: Second amendment applied to weapons commonly available at the time it was written. There is no need in modern times for a private individual to own a large stationary gun.
An individual can own a cannon, a large stationary gun, including modern artillery pieces. The ammunition is more troublesome since they are classified as deadly devices and a bit of paperwork is involved.
The more accurate characterization is one of imaginary laws not context. For example an imaginary law that an individual can not have high tech rifles, despite that in the context of the day individual civilians had higher tech rifles than the military issue muskets, and this remained true for another century. That a "regulated" militia is about complying with federal restrictions, rules and paperwork despite the context of the word "regulated" meaning properly equipped and trained to be effective. So no, context is the enemy of liberal judges.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, you're so wrong it's run passed funny and fallen face first into the bog of depressing.
Re: (Score:3)
"An individual can own a cannon, a large stationary gun, including modern artillery pieces" - not without restriction/regulations/permits, false 100%.
"The ammunition is more troublesome since they are classified as deadly devices and a bit of paperwork is involved." - You know nothing about explosives laws. Don't pretend.
And yet some private groups have modern artillery pieces to control avalanche hazards. Pieces that are locked in place in terms of location, elevation and traversal, essentially locked into their aiming point on the mountainside. Firing military high explosive shells to force an avalanche at the time of their choosing.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. For the record, the Supreme Court ruled that the idea a weapon (or one similar) must have existed at the time of the Founding Fathers to be covered is invalid.
Hence New York's and other states' arguments that tasers didn't exist, and so are not covered and may be outlawed to general citizens, was rejected.
Re: (Score:2)
Example: Second amendment doesn't ban Howitzers - you can own a Howitzer.
Of course you can own a howitzer. Howitzers are clearly militia weapons. ZERO people are killed and injured by civilian owned howitzers. It is a non-problem, and there is no reason to restrict them.
However, a ban on their use within city limits would be reasonable.
Geez, what's next? A ban on flamethrowers?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example as the 2nd is pretty clear that it includes military grade arms as that is what a militia needs to operate. Poison gas or lasers designed to blind would be better examples as they're both illegal for armies to use and not needed for self defence.
As for the 1st, the court regularly decides that some types of speech is not protected with conservatives and liberals agreeing on some types and disagreeing on other types.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example as the 2nd is pretty clear that it includes military grade arms as that is what a militia needs to operate.
Not just the 2nd, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court once ruled that a ban on sawed off shotguns was constitutional because such weapons were unfit for militia use. So if the antigun folks keep banning things all we may be left with are AR-15s because they would be fit for militia use. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. I guess they weren't aware how useful a sawed off shotgun (or perhaps made with a short barrel) was in a trench during WWI.
At the time the 2nd was written, the right to bear arms for self defence was pretty established, eg the Bill of Rights of 1689 and seems it would have been an unwritten assumption in the 2nd and the reason they mentioned the militia.
Re: (Score:3)
The liberals interpret it in context. Example: Second amendment applied to weapons commonly available at the time it was written. There is no need in modern times for a private individual to own a large stationary gun.
So you are saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything on the internet (or TV for that matter) since it wasn't commonly available at the time it was written?
Re: (Score:2)
If the Government is funding the entity, then it is acting for the government and bound by the 1st amendment.
Much as an agent of the police is bound by the constitutional limitations regarding search and seizure, unlike a private citizen that is a free agent.
Work on that reading comprehension (Score:2)
The supreme court has confirmed what every sensible human being already knew: That all private platforms like Facebook, Twitter, all online forums run by non-governement entities, etc, can run their business however the fuck they want. They can ban anyone or any group they want, for any reason whatsoever, and if they don't want their brand to be associated in any way, shape or form with the filth of this Earth, they are perfectly entitled to do so.
That is all well and good *until* they ask the government for immunity from liability for what people post because they claim to not be exercising editorial control. When you ask for a favor it is quite acceptable to expect something in return, quid pro quo, for example such immunity for a reasonable respect for free speech and political disagreement, to not have the low bar of whether the company likes being "associated" with something, "associated" to the extent it appears on their site.
Again, since yo
Re: (Score:2)
But they're not asking for immunity from liability for what people post because they don't exercise editorial control.
They *already have* immunity from liability for most of what people post because internet commenters such as yourself have a seemingly unlimited capacity to post unimaginable bullshit that nobody could practically exert complete