3 ms·
> National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court rul
by imustbeevil 6y ago
> National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling 8-0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.
> In a decision by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Mississippi's decision, holding that the nonviolent elements of the petitioners' activities were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and holding that the petitioners were not liable in damages for the consequences of their nonviolent, protected activity. This decision means that "boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech, occupying “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co.
- scarface74 6y agoWhy is this so hard to understand? “that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities...” The first amendment is binding to the states and federal government not a private business.
- imustbeevil 6y agoYou are misunderstanding. The Supreme Court held that Visa boycotting Gab (or anyone associated with Gab) is protected Political Speech. I'm pointing out the contradiction of everyone in this thread only caring about Gab's rights and not Visa's rights.
- scarface74 6y agoYou are correct. I got triggered because the three things that a lot of people get wrong on HN are censorship, monopoly, and anti-trust.
- rbecker 6y agoSo VISA's actions don't violate the 1st amendment. That doesn't answer if they violate anti-trust laws, nor does it answer the more important questions of is this behavior, even if legal, also moral, and should we be worried about how much power VISA has when they can so easily destroy a business.