5 ms·

"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 pre

"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." - First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (1789)

pwned1 8y ago
Just a correction, the First Amendment was adopted in 1791.
- bdhess 8y ago
  After having been written in 1789...
waterphone 8y ago
"Except in all these situations…" —Courts
craftyguy 8y ago
That stopped being taken at face value a long time ago when SCOTUS decided to weaponize the Commerce Clause...
- ailideex 8y ago
  Mind elaborating?
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The courts and the congress have a very strange interpretation of this, for example in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    - ailideex 8y ago
      I meant more on how that is relevant to free speech. The case you cited seems to be about cannabis.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        I'm not really sure. But the ever-expanding scope of the commerce clause is presumably what he refers to as weaponization.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._Unit... (note: I am not saying I disagree with a decision to outlaw discrimination, just pointing out the absurdity that the Commerce Clause was 'interpreted' as being the only way to do this [which ultimately resulted in government limiting free speech])
    - sbuttgereit 8y ago
      This is my favorite example of this overreach... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn In hand-wavy terms... in this case the commerce clause was used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own land for use in feeding his own livestock. The federal government had established limits on wheat production at the time as part of the "New Deal".
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        That was not overreach. At the time, laws limited how much wheat a farmer could grow so as to maintain the national price of wheat. (Wheat hasn't been a purely local product in more than a century.) The farmer in the case grew more than his allotment. He sold the allowed amount but then used the excess to feed his own cows, rather than buying it from the market (or taking it out of his original allotment). If allowed, at scale this would render the crop controls meaningless and would have destroyed the price of wheat during a time of war, driving thousands of farmers into destitution and eliminating a potential resource needed for the war effort.
everdev 8y ago
> since 1996 federal law has provided broad protections for online publishers of third-party content. Backpage has successfully argued that it can’t be held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of others—no matter how reprehensible. They're not arguing that they have the right to publish ads for illegal services. They're saying they're not liable for what 3rd parties post on their site. They're saying they're more like journalists, simply reporting what other people are saying (which happens to be promoting illegal services). While it sounds like they are pro-decriminalizing sex work, no one is arguing that it's legal to advertise criminal behavior (selling drugs, weapons, sex, etc.). They're just telling the courts to go after those advertisers individually rather than Backpage.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Backpage's case would be stronger if they hadn't set themselves up to profit from this type of illegal advert, and if they hadn't hampered law enforcement at every opportunity.
  - everdev 8y ago
    Yeah it's a dubious case IMO. The 1st amendment is incredibly important and even more so in journalism, but this seems like a retroactive last ditch defense. They clearly wanted to profit off of the sex industry in places where it was still illegal to do so.

pwned1 8y ago

Just a correction, the First Amendment was adopted in 1791.

bdhess 8y ago
After having been written in 1789...

waterphone 8y ago

"Except in all these situations…" —Courts

craftyguy 8y ago

That stopped being taken at face value a long time ago when SCOTUS decided to weaponize the Commerce Clause...

ailideex 8y ago
Mind elaborating?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The courts and the congress have a very strange interpretation of this, for example in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - ailideex 8y ago
    I meant more on how that is relevant to free speech. The case you cited seems to be about cannabis.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      I'm not really sure. But the ever-expanding scope of the commerce clause is presumably what he refers to as weaponization.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._Unit... (note: I am not saying I disagree with a decision to outlaw discrimination, just pointing out the absurdity that the Commerce Clause was 'interpreted' as being the only way to do this [which ultimately resulted in government limiting free speech])
  - sbuttgereit 8y ago
    This is my favorite example of this overreach... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn In hand-wavy terms... in this case the commerce clause was used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own land for use in feeding his own livestock. The federal government had established limits on wheat production at the time as part of the "New Deal".
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      That was not overreach. At the time, laws limited how much wheat a farmer could grow so as to maintain the national price of wheat. (Wheat hasn't been a purely local product in more than a century.) The farmer in the case grew more than his allotment. He sold the allowed amount but then used the excess to feed his own cows, rather than buying it from the market (or taking it out of his original allotment). If allowed, at scale this would render the crop controls meaningless and would have destroyed the price of wheat during a time of war, driving thousands of farmers into destitution and eliminating a potential resource needed for the war effort.

everdev 8y ago

> since 1996 federal law has provided broad protections for online publishers of third-party content. Backpage has successfully argued that it can’t be held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of others—no matter how reprehensible. They're not arguing that they have the right to publish ads for illegal services. They're saying they're not liable for what 3rd parties post on their site. They're saying they're more like journalists, simply reporting what other people are saying (which happens to be promoting illegal services). While it sounds like they are pro-decriminalizing sex work, no one is arguing that it's legal to advertise criminal behavior (selling drugs, weapons, sex, etc.). They're just telling the courts to go after those advertisers individually rather than Backpage.

DanBC 8y ago
Backpage's case would be stronger if they hadn't set themselves up to profit from this type of illegal advert, and if they hadn't hampered law enforcement at every opportunity.
- everdev 8y ago
  Yeah it's a dubious case IMO. The 1st amendment is incredibly important and even more so in journalism, but this seems like a retroactive last ditch defense. They clearly wanted to profit off of the sex industry in places where it was still illegal to do so.