3 ms·
Same kinda of thing they have done in the past the First Amendment trumps companies rights > ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion.
by tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Same kinda of thing they have done in the past the First Amendment trumps companies rights
> ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- DenisM 6y agoWhoa. Thank you so much for this, I had no idea!
- eyelidlessness 6y agoIANAL, but I think there’s a pretty substantial difference between “prevent distribution” and “refuse to publish”. There are some cases in 1A caselaw where mandatory publishing is a thing, but they’re extraordinarily limited and generally public health/safety oriented and proscribed by the state. I’d be shocked if even this court went so far as to mandate a private company devote its resources to providing content that violates its own rules.