3 ms·

> 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 analysi

> 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
  > Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of THIS lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter. So unless you have a very compelling legal argument... > 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 Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is even stronger. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech... > 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). Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel. > In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. Yes. > 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. And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech? More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.

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
> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of THIS lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter. So unless you have a very compelling legal argument... > 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 Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is even stronger. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech... > 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). Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel. > In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. Yes. > 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. And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech? More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.