3 ms·

The government doesn't control how Apple designs it's hardware and software, that's how.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Actually there are numerous regulations you have to follow to run pretty much any sort of business or sell product under the sun. None of this is a violation of the first amendment. It's a short amendment. Can you please quote the part which you believe this law runs affoul of and explain how?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Freedom of association is not explicit in the first amendment but it is still widely understood, and tested in court that it protected by it. Financial transactions between two individuals or corporations is an exercise in free association. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. * Apple makes a phone, it works in X, Y, Z ways and asks someone to buy it. <- this is what people call "speech" for a corporation. * Someone says, ok - I will buy this. <- spending money in a consensual transaction is considered a form of speech. This is well established in American law. * Government later comes in and says - hey, you MUST provide feature A, even though Apple doesn't want to. <- this violates the "congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise theoreof" of the "free speech" portion of the first amendment. It's also an infringement on the first amendment right of the customer to engage in a consensual transaction with Apple as now the government is forcing them to pay for and use something that they did not agree to in said transaction. Apple is not being deceptive about how their walled garden works. If they were, then it's just fraud. Anti-trust in and of itself is an infringement of the first amendment, and is often counterproductive to the intended goal anyway. How did getting slapped with Antitrust work out for Microsoft? They are bigger and more powerful than ever, and they still ship two web browsers with their operating system, and nag you when you try to change it. Standard Oil got splintered and Exxon came out of it. Many such cases.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    By your logic the first amendment would forbid all regulation as you have redefined all commercial activity as speech. This is certainly novel and interesting but it's not in line with our nations laws nor jurisprudence. Back in reality commercial speech and activity will remain regulated.
ergl 5y ago
Yes it does. Does the government have control over the fact that cars must have airbags and seatbelts?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  And if that regulation disappeared overnight do you think everyone would stop selling cars with seatbelts?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    It's now an established standard but uptake could have been slower and more piecemeal or even remained niche to this day. I think at worst it's trivially arguable that many lives were saved by mandating it thus such regulations were a huge net good. You are free to argue that this isn't but it's silly to argue that it's illegal because your theory is unsupportable.

Actually there are numerous regulations you have to follow to run pretty much any sort of business or sell product under the sun. None of this is a violation of the first amendment. It's a short amendment. Can you please quote the part which you believe this law runs affoul of and explain how?

rubyist5eva 5y ago
Freedom of association is not explicit in the first amendment but it is still widely understood, and tested in court that it protected by it. Financial transactions between two individuals or corporations is an exercise in free association. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. * Apple makes a phone, it works in X, Y, Z ways and asks someone to buy it. <- this is what people call "speech" for a corporation. * Someone says, ok - I will buy this. <- spending money in a consensual transaction is considered a form of speech. This is well established in American law. * Government later comes in and says - hey, you MUST provide feature A, even though Apple doesn't want to. <- this violates the "congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise theoreof" of the "free speech" portion of the first amendment. It's also an infringement on the first amendment right of the customer to engage in a consensual transaction with Apple as now the government is forcing them to pay for and use something that they did not agree to in said transaction. Apple is not being deceptive about how their walled garden works. If they were, then it's just fraud. Anti-trust in and of itself is an infringement of the first amendment, and is often counterproductive to the intended goal anyway. How did getting slapped with Antitrust work out for Microsoft? They are bigger and more powerful than ever, and they still ship two web browsers with their operating system, and nag you when you try to change it. Standard Oil got splintered and Exxon came out of it. Many such cases.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  By your logic the first amendment would forbid all regulation as you have redefined all commercial activity as speech. This is certainly novel and interesting but it's not in line with our nations laws nor jurisprudence. Back in reality commercial speech and activity will remain regulated.

ergl 5y ago

Yes it does. Does the government have control over the fact that cars must have airbags and seatbelts?

rubyist5eva 5y ago
And if that regulation disappeared overnight do you think everyone would stop selling cars with seatbelts?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  It's now an established standard but uptake could have been slower and more piecemeal or even remained niche to this day. I think at worst it's trivially arguable that many lives were saved by mandating it thus such regulations were a huge net good. You are free to argue that this isn't but it's silly to argue that it's illegal because your theory is unsupportable.