3 ms·

The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids "Congress" from "abridging the freedom of speech." It goes no further. There's certainly a question

• bloaf 6y ago
  On whether a private company could prohibit the distribution of written materials in a town that they owned: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/ > Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
  • bjt2n3904 6y ago
    That is a fascinating case. Thank you for sharing it!
• thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids "Congress" from "abridging the freedom of speech." It goes no further. True but meaningless; the text goes no further than that, as to freedom of speech -- actually, it doesn't even go that far[1] -- but the amendment does go much further than that. For example, it is considered to be binding on the states through "incorporation" under the 14th amendment. [1] The text prohibits Congress from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech. This is one reason I don't really understand the argument that the first amendment should protect Trump from being impeached over a speech which is unquestionably protected by the first amendment -- the legislative power and the impeachment power are two separate grants of authority.