3 ms·
What's more interesting in the Apple case is that protecting citizens' 4th amendment rights is contingent on protecting corporation's 1st amendment rights. Appl
by nindalf 11y ago
What's more interesting in the Apple case is that protecting citizens' 4th amendment rights is contingent on protecting corporation's 1st amendment rights. Apple claimed that since code is speech, being forced to create and digitally sign the backdoor code is forced speech.
The Citizens United decision from 2010 guarantees a corporation's 1st amendment rights, but I wonder if Apple could still use this defense if that decision was overturned.
- snowwrestler 11y agoCitizens United depends on the concept that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. But it did not create that concept. That has actually been settled law for a long time; it is how newspapers (which are corporations) are able to enjoy freedom of the press--not just the reporters individually. So Citizens United could be overturned and it would not hurt Apple's case at all.
- emergentcypher 11y agoUmm, newspapers enjoy freedom of the press because the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees freedom of the press. > Congress shall make no law [...] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press