10 ms·
And people will argue whether there was any concept of guns outside of muskets when drafting 2A. The exact placement of letters and punctuation has generally t
by okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
And people will argue whether there was any concept of guns outside of muskets when drafting 2A.
The exact placement of letters and punctuation has generally taken a back seat to the "spirit" of the constitution.
- - -
As to the reason I referenced marsh v alabama,
> 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.
The rights of a citizen to speak freely on a sidewalk do not go away because the government stops owning sidewalks
- - -
And I'm pro-moderation, I said as much. I just believe the rules for moderation should be government dictate, not arbitrary company dictate
- stillbourne 5y agoSidewalks are not content providers, don't come with legal terms and conditions, and not legally protected by Section 230. That's a reductionist argument and completely absurd to consider a sidewalk a website. You're analogy is flawed, a sidewalk is more akin to the network infrastructure of the internet, but a website is your analogy is more like a house. And you can kick anyone out of your house you want to because you own that property. Furthermore, government dictated moderation is de facto censorship, not the other way around.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y agothat still doesn't speak against the concepts in the supreme court ruling. Someone tried to apply their own terms and conditions to their property. They couldn't because they had made it into a public space with public expectations.
- stillbourne 5y agoLink the case please.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y agoI... already did? but here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- stillbourne 5y agoThe closest thing I could find is: Cyber Promotions v. America Online https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9... The argument was based on the Marsh v Alabama ruling but the justices did not agree. That's why we're allowed to have spam filters. Are you pro or anti spam filter, because by your definition of the law, spam filters are illegal.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y agoedit: actually nevermind, I'm not going to take a full degree in drafting legislature just to argue that citizen rights be respected in more places, you are silly and you know you are silly Marsh would sooner apply to social media than to email, it does not magically have to apply to both or neither.
- stillbourne 5y agoI'm the one being silly? There is not a single affirmative ruling in your favor that's related to technology, all you have is something about sidewalks in a company town.