3 ms·

How is this not a violation to the first amendment? Does the first amendment not extend as follows: (?) As a citizen don't I have the right to create a busines

How is this not a violation to the first amendment? Does the first amendment not extend as follows: (?) As a citizen don't I have the right to create a business and privately take notes on whatever I'd like to about my customers? If i run a dry cleaners and take notes about my customers, should I be obligated to disclose these notes or even the existence of these notes to my customers? I don't see why extending the dry cleaning business to a mobile app or website effects anything. What about journalists, are they required to disclose what data they're collecting about people as they do their job? I feel like the state constitution granted right to privacy does not supersede the federally mandated right to freedom of speech both the right to take internal notes and documentation and the violation of one's speech rights by forcing this disclosure. however IANAL and I don't live in California. Could someone share some insights onto the first amendment side of this?

mdavidn 7y ago
IANAL, but I think a human needs to be involved in the individuals' processing as a prerequisite to "speech." An automated process has no Constitutional rights.
- zbentley 7y ago
  > An automated process has no Constitutional rights. Yet.
krapp 7y ago
>I feel like the state constitution granted right to privacy does not supersede the federally mandated right to freedom of speech Gonna have to stop you there. The First Amendment doesn't mandate a right to free speech. It only prevents Congress from passing laws abridging that right. There's nothing, Constitutionally speaking, preventing states from doing so. Edit: nope, Apparently I'm wrong on this one.
- mdavidn 7y ago
  That's not the case. The Bill of Rights now does largely apply to the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
- holy_city 7y ago
  >There's nothing, Constitutionally speaking, preventing states from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
dragonwriter 7y ago
> As a citizen don't I have the right to create a business Nope. That's not an express Constitutional limit imposed on states and thus states general police powers extend to regulating that behavior. (To the extend the proposed business engages in, or impacts, interstate commerce there is also federal regulatory power under the commerce clause, but the immediate issue is the broader state regulatory power.)
SamReidHughes 7y ago
The bill has an explicit carve-out for free speech. So in some sense the bill is going "la la la I don't violate the first amendment," but ultimately it depends on what that clause means.

mdavidn 7y ago

IANAL, but I think a human needs to be involved in the individuals' processing as a prerequisite to "speech." An automated process has no Constitutional rights.

zbentley 7y ago
> An automated process has no Constitutional rights. Yet.

krapp 7y ago

>I feel like the state constitution granted right to privacy does not supersede the federally mandated right to freedom of speech Gonna have to stop you there. The First Amendment doesn't mandate a right to free speech. It only prevents Congress from passing laws abridging that right. There's nothing, Constitutionally speaking, preventing states from doing so. Edit: nope, Apparently I'm wrong on this one.

mdavidn 7y ago
That's not the case. The Bill of Rights now does largely apply to the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
holy_city 7y ago
>There's nothing, Constitutionally speaking, preventing states from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

dragonwriter 7y ago

> As a citizen don't I have the right to create a business Nope. That's not an express Constitutional limit imposed on states and thus states general police powers extend to regulating that behavior. (To the extend the proposed business engages in, or impacts, interstate commerce there is also federal regulatory power under the commerce clause, but the immediate issue is the broader state regulatory power.)

SamReidHughes 7y ago

The bill has an explicit carve-out for free speech. So in some sense the bill is going "la la la I don't violate the first amendment," but ultimately it depends on what that clause means.