4 ms·

Not worrying about what the law actually is for a moment, what I'm a bit curious about is how some here likely support the invocation of rights under the First

Not worrying about what the law actually is for a moment, what I'm a bit curious about is how some here likely support the invocation of rights under the First Amendment for Apple in this case, yet will maintain that First Amendment rights for companies shouldn't be recognized when other issues are at stake, such as a question of politics is involved (thinking the Citizens United case specifically). How does one resolve that contradiction in constitutional interpretation? (Yes I do know that historically constitutional rights have had partial applicability to companies recognized by courts... But even so that seems contradictory to the proper definition of a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution: either they apply or not.)

nindalf 11y ago
That and the packaging laws on cigarettes, which is certainly compelled speech. I think its a little difficult opposing Citizen's United and supporting packaging laws while still arguing that Apple deserves First Amendment rights and should not be compelled to digitally sign the backdoor. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify if these cases to apply to Apple.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  CU was my first thought, too. I don't like arguing this case as a violation of Apple's 1A rights, which I don't believe exist. There seems to be a real desire in the US, on both sides of the political divide, to offload policy making to the courts (when it works in your favour, and despise it when it goes against you). Fetishization of a centuries-old document, that has long been surpassed by others in its ability to deliver effective government, is not how healthy societies should meet and face the challenges of their day. The government shouldn't compel Apple to do this because it's wrong and it hurts America, not because it violates Apple's supposed constitutional rights.
studentrob 11y ago
I have no difficulty opposing Citizens United and supporting Apple's position. There is a big difference between money and code, and more similarities between code and text or speech. People cannot generate money as freely or easily as they can generate text, speech, or code. Money is in limited supply, whereas speech / text / code are unlimited.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  There are at least two problems with your position. 1) Production != Distribution. The distribution of speech / code / text is not in unlimited supply. Sure, I can go set up a soap box in front of city hall and have my say to anyone within earshot; but even then I'll have an advantage over the poor sucker that can't afford a soap box. Distribution of speech takes resources, which ultimately means money or time. This isn't new; in the late 18th century you'd need access to a printing press and delivery people to reach a sufficient number of people. Today you need additionally need broadcasting and computers. None of it free. And while the right to speech does not include the right to be heard, it does imply at the very least that you should be able to improve your chances of being heard. 2) We have the right to associate with other people and act cooperatively in common cause. We may pool our money to put our views on the same playing field as someone with greater resources, we can create an efficient division of labor to achieve our ends, and ultimately elect to leave should we find our views departing from the direction of the group. Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? Why is it right to apply force to give preference to one kind of association of people over another? Apple is correct in pursuing Constitutional rights, because at the end of the day it is the rights of individual shareholders acting in association and common cause. It is the rights of a person to not have their property put to use against their own interests: whether those are financial interests or interest in the functioning of society. Your only proper tool against them is to also make speech, including associating with other like minded individuals if you need to; it is not proper pr moral to coercively silence those associations you disfavor.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? They don't. Individuals can continue to donate to campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, should be limited in their ability to fund election campaigns, directly or indirectly. Their money is large and tends to be wielded by a small number of people. This subverts the original intention of our democratic republic. That said, this thread is about Apple, not political spending.

nindalf 11y ago

That and the packaging laws on cigarettes, which is certainly compelled speech. I think its a little difficult opposing Citizen's United and supporting packaging laws while still arguing that Apple deserves First Amendment rights and should not be compelled to digitally sign the backdoor. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify if these cases to apply to Apple.

redthrowaway 11y ago
CU was my first thought, too. I don't like arguing this case as a violation of Apple's 1A rights, which I don't believe exist. There seems to be a real desire in the US, on both sides of the political divide, to offload policy making to the courts (when it works in your favour, and despise it when it goes against you). Fetishization of a centuries-old document, that has long been surpassed by others in its ability to deliver effective government, is not how healthy societies should meet and face the challenges of their day. The government shouldn't compel Apple to do this because it's wrong and it hurts America, not because it violates Apple's supposed constitutional rights.

studentrob 11y ago

I have no difficulty opposing Citizens United and supporting Apple's position. There is a big difference between money and code, and more similarities between code and text or speech. People cannot generate money as freely or easily as they can generate text, speech, or code. Money is in limited supply, whereas speech / text / code are unlimited.

sbuttgereit 11y ago
There are at least two problems with your position. 1) Production != Distribution. The distribution of speech / code / text is not in unlimited supply. Sure, I can go set up a soap box in front of city hall and have my say to anyone within earshot; but even then I'll have an advantage over the poor sucker that can't afford a soap box. Distribution of speech takes resources, which ultimately means money or time. This isn't new; in the late 18th century you'd need access to a printing press and delivery people to reach a sufficient number of people. Today you need additionally need broadcasting and computers. None of it free. And while the right to speech does not include the right to be heard, it does imply at the very least that you should be able to improve your chances of being heard. 2) We have the right to associate with other people and act cooperatively in common cause. We may pool our money to put our views on the same playing field as someone with greater resources, we can create an efficient division of labor to achieve our ends, and ultimately elect to leave should we find our views departing from the direction of the group. Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? Why is it right to apply force to give preference to one kind of association of people over another? Apple is correct in pursuing Constitutional rights, because at the end of the day it is the rights of individual shareholders acting in association and common cause. It is the rights of a person to not have their property put to use against their own interests: whether those are financial interests or interest in the functioning of society. Your only proper tool against them is to also make speech, including associating with other like minded individuals if you need to; it is not proper pr moral to coercively silence those associations you disfavor.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? They don't. Individuals can continue to donate to campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, should be limited in their ability to fund election campaigns, directly or indirectly. Their money is large and tends to be wielded by a small number of people. This subverts the original intention of our democratic republic. That said, this thread is about Apple, not political spending.