4 ms·

Here's where I part ways with the EFF's analysis: The article says, "the First Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to speak your mind. It also protects y

Here's where I part ways with the EFF's analysis: The article says, "the First Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to speak your mind. It also protects your right to receive, read, hear, see, and obtain information and ideas." (Italics added.) The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I understand that there are literally dozens of bound volumes of case analysis that apply to the interpretation of this amendment by dozens of courts great and small, but I don't think any of them have gone so far as to say that I have a constitutional right to receive information in a certain medium. If a tweet is that important, some newspaper will reprint it.

cvsh 9y ago
Yep. This argument rests on shaky ground. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed organizations like EFF or ACLU are wasting time on it. Surely there are plenty of bigger fish to fry in this horrorshow administration than Trump blocking people on Twitter.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Legal cases are not just about the matter at hand. This can set the precedent on how the government can use private companies to evade the restrictions set upon it by the First Amendment.
nv-vn 9y ago
This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right. It also restricts the right of the media or Twitter to remove Trump if they so wish to.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." No, that does not follow from the article's analysis. What does follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect this right to receive, then the gov't can be forced to use a different forum. Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their public meetings in the food court. Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council needs to find a different place to meet. > By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of ways.
  - nv-vn 9y ago
    > No, that does not follow from the article's analysis. Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free speech). > But then the council needs to find a different place to meet. The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government communications), then that has suddenly become protected.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago

cvsh 9y ago

Yep. This argument rests on shaky ground. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed organizations like EFF or ACLU are wasting time on it. Surely there are plenty of bigger fish to fry in this horrorshow administration than Trump blocking people on Twitter.

icebraining 9y ago
Legal cases are not just about the matter at hand. This can set the precedent on how the government can use private companies to evade the restrictions set upon it by the First Amendment.

nv-vn 9y ago

This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right. It also restricts the right of the media or Twitter to remove Trump if they so wish to.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." No, that does not follow from the article's analysis. What does follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect this right to receive, then the gov't can be forced to use a different forum. Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their public meetings in the food court. Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council needs to find a different place to meet. > By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of ways.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  > No, that does not follow from the article's analysis. Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free speech). > But then the council needs to find a different place to meet. The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government communications), then that has suddenly become protected.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago