4 ms·

Short version: Without the implied freedom of political views, the protected classes gain little to nothing from the equal protection clause. The post war amen

Short version: Without the implied freedom of political views, the protected classes gain little to nothing from the equal protection clause. The post war amendments were intended not just to ensure equal treatment under the law, but also allow equal political participation. What good is allowing a black man to participate in the political process if, for example, desegregation is a disallowed political view? Long version: I'm saying the combination of the following elements of the constitution: A guaranteed republican form of government clause, (democratically elected officials represent the political views of their citizens) The 1st amendment, (government may not restrict/compel/suppress speech, freedom of association) the 14th amendment (as interpreted), including: 1- equal protection clause, 2- federal constitutional restrictions applied to states, and 3- protections extended to privately held, public facing entities, (as is required to interpret the civil rights act as constitutional) ...Leaves no room to interpret political affiliation/views as being less protected than any protected class. Freedom of political view and affiliation is required as a cornerstone for the rest of the system to be built upon. Equal protection, as a means of allowing minorities or protected classes equal participation in the political process itself, as well as civil life, requires an underlying political process in which to participate. If that process is fundamentally restricted (via taboo political beliefs) then the protected classes aren't really protected, if they are allowed in the process, but their political views are not.

zamadatix 6y ago
> The 1st amendment, (government may not restrict/compel/suppress speech, freedom of association) 1st amendment first because it's the most clear cut - this very specifically applies to the government. Twitter/Facebook/Bob's Ice Cream are not government bodies so the 1st amendment does not apply to them. It also does not say the government must actively promote speech in public forums. It simply limits the ability of the government itself to restrict free speech. . > the 14th amendment (as interpreted), including: > 1- equal protection clause, > 2- federal constitutional restrictions applied to states, and > 3- protections extended to privately held, public facing entities, (as is required to interpret the civil rights act as constitutional) 1 - The equal protection clause guarantees equal protection of citizens under the law and doesn't allow a law to deprive life, liberty, or property without due process. It doesn't define any new rights it simply disallows laws which abridge existing privileges or are applied unequally to different people. And again none of this directly relevant to why public political speech is protected, this is about the government not what Twitter/Facebook/Bob's Ice Cream must do/can't do. I.e. we're looking for something that protects public political speech not a reason it would have to be enforced if it were protected. 2 - Again not defining anything for Twitter/Facebook but regardless the 14th amendment doesn't cover this piece other parts do. Perhaps you meant the other way around, that the 14th's restrictions for states have been ruled to be relevant to federal? Either way. 3 - Extension of the protections is not part of 14th amendment. Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the provisions of the article, one of which is equal application of the law, but it was in "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States" where the Supreme Court ruled since Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states Congress can constitutionally apply the Civil Rights Act to businesses. The 14th amendment is important, government must apply these protections equally, but it's not what gave them the power to regulate commerce, that was the Commerce Clause from the Articles. Since the Civil Rights Act didn't make political speech a protected class this path doesn't apply. Since the 14th amendment doesn't define it either we're still in search of a law that protects political speech outside of government suppression. . Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the censoring on social media and I think democracy works better if we don't, but it's simply not protected by law and certainly not by the constitution itself. Protections under the constitution very closely align with what the government may or may not do and how the government may or may not do it. Once things get outside of a person <-> government relationship the constitution tends to provide guidance on who in government has power to make law about something. There are laws like the Civil Rights Act which extend certain protections for certain groups to certain places like a public business but they do not cover political speech or affiliation. That's not to say there should or shouldn't be protections for that, just that there aren't any in the current laws. Right now what is protected is your ability to go and vote for whoever you like equally as much as anyone else would be. You can even vote for people that would like to change the constitution itself to add or remove protections. What is not protected is your right for the public to listen to or transmit your speech. If Facebook decides people who talk about privacy shouldn't be allowed on their platform there is no protection about it. The government however is not allowed to suppress this speech on the basis of disliking it alone. That's about where the train stops today though.

zamadatix 6y ago

> The 1st amendment, (government may not restrict/compel/suppress speech, freedom of association) 1st amendment first because it's the most clear cut - this very specifically applies to the government. Twitter/Facebook/Bob's Ice Cream are not government bodies so the 1st amendment does not apply to them. It also does not say the government must actively promote speech in public forums. It simply limits the ability of the government itself to restrict free speech. . > the 14th amendment (as interpreted), including: > 1- equal protection clause, > 2- federal constitutional restrictions applied to states, and > 3- protections extended to privately held, public facing entities, (as is required to interpret the civil rights act as constitutional) 1 - The equal protection clause guarantees equal protection of citizens under the law and doesn't allow a law to deprive life, liberty, or property without due process. It doesn't define any new rights it simply disallows laws which abridge existing privileges or are applied unequally to different people. And again none of this directly relevant to why public political speech is protected, this is about the government not what Twitter/Facebook/Bob's Ice Cream must do/can't do. I.e. we're looking for something that protects public political speech not a reason it would have to be enforced if it were protected. 2 - Again not defining anything for Twitter/Facebook but regardless the 14th amendment doesn't cover this piece other parts do. Perhaps you meant the other way around, that the 14th's restrictions for states have been ruled to be relevant to federal? Either way. 3 - Extension of the protections is not part of 14th amendment. Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the provisions of the article, one of which is equal application of the law, but it was in "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States" where the Supreme Court ruled since Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states Congress can constitutionally apply the Civil Rights Act to businesses. The 14th amendment is important, government must apply these protections equally, but it's not what gave them the power to regulate commerce, that was the Commerce Clause from the Articles. Since the Civil Rights Act didn't make political speech a protected class this path doesn't apply. Since the 14th amendment doesn't define it either we're still in search of a law that protects political speech outside of government suppression. . Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the censoring on social media and I think democracy works better if we don't, but it's simply not protected by law and certainly not by the constitution itself. Protections under the constitution very closely align with what the government may or may not do and how the government may or may not do it. Once things get outside of a person <-> government relationship the constitution tends to provide guidance on who in government has power to make law about something. There are laws like the Civil Rights Act which extend certain protections for certain groups to certain places like a public business but they do not cover political speech or affiliation. That's not to say there should or shouldn't be protections for that, just that there aren't any in the current laws. Right now what is protected is your ability to go and vote for whoever you like equally as much as anyone else would be. You can even vote for people that would like to change the constitution itself to add or remove protections. What is not protected is your right for the public to listen to or transmit your speech. If Facebook decides people who talk about privacy shouldn't be allowed on their platform there is no protection about it. The government however is not allowed to suppress this speech on the basis of disliking it alone. That's about where the train stops today though.