3 ms·

>>The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this.>> Sure they could. They had the East India Tea Company. I'm not a legal expert but it seems like the fun

>>The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this.>> Sure they could. They had the East India Tea Company. I'm not a legal expert but it seems like the fundamentals are pretty simple and timeless. If they have a monopoly, then their private get-out-jail-free card no longer applies.

throwaway894345 6y ago
As I read it, "this" refers to "a monopoly on communication/speech", not "a monopoly [of any kind]".
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Messages had to be transmitted by hand until the telegraph era. The British (or Dutch) India Companies had a stranglehold over shipping -- and thus over communication -- to colonial holdings for much of their existence.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I wasn't aware of this, but I still don't think this is a compelling analogy. I doubt that these companies were able to efficiently parse the content of these messages in order to manipulate the distributions of certain messages, for example. Further, there's simply no way that post had nearly the same share of communication as do digital systems today (most communication was certainly by word of mouth and print).
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    The majority of communication was still local - and importantly, B/D India Company wasn't opening and reading and censoring all the letters they were transporting.
- cat199 6y ago
  No barrister or legal historian here, but fairly certain that a monopoly on permissible communication/speech was and is still held (in title at least) by the Crown this is pretty much precisely what the 1nd amendment is about and why it was so radical at the time.
  - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    Also due to the Stamp Act.
- bigphishy 6y ago
  Benjamin Franklin controlled major fractions of the post offices in the colonies, the other rival post offices and Ben Franklin would often censor mail and remove messages. So, it also applies in the way you originally read it back then as well. I recommend the biography of Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson
tomatotomato37 6y ago
The East India Tea Company wasn't a fully antonymous entity though by the time of the American Revolution; it was more equivalent to a state-owned enterprise found in the likes of modern day China. Because of this any "powerful" moves the company made was assumed to be an extension of British political will moreso than that of some profit-seeking NGO.

throwaway894345 6y ago

As I read it, "this" refers to "a monopoly on communication/speech", not "a monopoly [of any kind]".

blaser-waffle 6y ago
Messages had to be transmitted by hand until the telegraph era. The British (or Dutch) India Companies had a stranglehold over shipping -- and thus over communication -- to colonial holdings for much of their existence.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I wasn't aware of this, but I still don't think this is a compelling analogy. I doubt that these companies were able to efficiently parse the content of these messages in order to manipulate the distributions of certain messages, for example. Further, there's simply no way that post had nearly the same share of communication as do digital systems today (most communication was certainly by word of mouth and print).
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The majority of communication was still local - and importantly, B/D India Company wasn't opening and reading and censoring all the letters they were transporting.
cat199 6y ago
No barrister or legal historian here, but fairly certain that a monopoly on permissible communication/speech was and is still held (in title at least) by the Crown this is pretty much precisely what the 1nd amendment is about and why it was so radical at the time.
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  Also due to the Stamp Act.
bigphishy 6y ago
Benjamin Franklin controlled major fractions of the post offices in the colonies, the other rival post offices and Ben Franklin would often censor mail and remove messages. So, it also applies in the way you originally read it back then as well. I recommend the biography of Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson

tomatotomato37 6y ago

The East India Tea Company wasn't a fully antonymous entity though by the time of the American Revolution; it was more equivalent to a state-owned enterprise found in the likes of modern day China. Because of this any "powerful" moves the company made was assumed to be an extension of British political will moreso than that of some profit-seeking NGO.