4 ms·

US Federal laws and CA law will be the same, 1st amendment trumps anything CA would try to do to curb speech. Same with UN Treaties, it literally not possibl

by syshum 4y ago

US Federal laws and CA law will be the same, 1st amendment trumps anything CA would try to do to curb speech. Same with UN Treaties, it literally not possible for the US to enter into a treaty that violates the constitution, the US Constitution overrules all laws, treaties, agreements, state laws, everything.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> US Federal laws and CA law will be the same No, they won't. > 1st amendment trumps anything CA would try to do to curb speech. Technically, no, the 1st Amendment as such, has no effect on California. The Supreme Court has, however, found that the among the restrictions imposed on the Statss by the 14th Amendment are protections essentially precisely equivalent to those in several parts of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. But that doesn’t make California and federal law identical, it makes the outer limit of what federal and state governments could prohibit generally similar (because of the different interests of federal and state government and the way the strict scrutiny test is applied, even the actual outer limits on the two are not identical.)
- syshum 4y ago
  >Technically, no, hmmm >>The Supreme Court has, however, found that the among the restrictions imposed on the Statss by the 14th Amendment So then, technically, yes it does apply. >But that doesn’t make California and federal law identical, Exactly, CA can only allow MORE speech, it CAN NOT have a more restrictive speech law than is allowed by the 1st amendment, which is pretty expansive prohibiting only actual defamation and true threats.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > So then, technically, yes it does apply. Technically, the First Amendment doesn't, the due process clause of the 14th does. Practically, the effects are indistinguishable, since the Supreme Court has found that 14th’s due process clause protects rights essential to ordered liberty, and the Supreme Court has found that those rights essential to ordered liberty include (but are not limited to) rights coincidentally identical to the entirety of those protected against federal encroachment by Amendments in the Bill of Rights whose numbers are integer powers of 2 (though to my knowledge no actual case has used that particular description), plus subsets of those protected against federal encroachment by the 5th and 6th amendments. > Exactly, CA can only allow MORE speech California can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not. It can't allow less than the First/Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech mandates, but the federal government doesn't prohibit everything that could be prohibited under those restrictions, and a rule that only prohibited illegal conduct would apply differently if it applied California law (or law applicable in California, including federal law) than if it applied only federal law, and differently if it applied the combination of federal and California law than if it applied the combination of federal law and the law of some other state.
    - syshum 4y ago
      You are just being intentionally obtuse, and not really providing anything of substance this conversation. I would like you to cite an example of your claim where CA "can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not"
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > I would like you to cite an example of your claim where CA "can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not" A few illustrative areas: 1. Violations of the California Right of Publicity (Civil Code § 3344). 2. Libel (Civil Code §§ 45, 45a.) 3. Violations of California obscenity law (Penal Code § 311 et seq.). All three of these are laws that have been found enforceable and outside of First Amendment protection, but which impose civil or criminal liability for content which is not (inherently, though there may be some overlap) unlawful to create/distribute under federal law. The first is pretty special to California, the other two are things which are generally viewed as “illegal in the US” in broad outline, but which mostly are a matter of state law, not federal law, with different precise statutory boundaries (and even more differences due to case law) in each state which has a similar prohibition.

by syshum 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> US Federal laws and CA law will be the same No, they won't. > 1st amendment trumps anything CA would try to do to curb speech. Technically, no, the 1st Amendment as such, has no effect on California. The Supreme Court has, however, found that the among the restrictions imposed on the Statss by the 14th Amendment are protections essentially precisely equivalent to those in several parts of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. But that doesn’t make California and federal law identical, it makes the outer limit of what federal and state governments could prohibit generally similar (because of the different interests of federal and state government and the way the strict scrutiny test is applied, even the actual outer limits on the two are not identical.)

syshum 4y ago
>Technically, no, hmmm >>The Supreme Court has, however, found that the among the restrictions imposed on the Statss by the 14th Amendment So then, technically, yes it does apply. >But that doesn’t make California and federal law identical, Exactly, CA can only allow MORE speech, it CAN NOT have a more restrictive speech law than is allowed by the 1st amendment, which is pretty expansive prohibiting only actual defamation and true threats.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > So then, technically, yes it does apply. Technically, the First Amendment doesn't, the due process clause of the 14th does. Practically, the effects are indistinguishable, since the Supreme Court has found that 14th’s due process clause protects rights essential to ordered liberty, and the Supreme Court has found that those rights essential to ordered liberty include (but are not limited to) rights coincidentally identical to the entirety of those protected against federal encroachment by Amendments in the Bill of Rights whose numbers are integer powers of 2 (though to my knowledge no actual case has used that particular description), plus subsets of those protected against federal encroachment by the 5th and 6th amendments. > Exactly, CA can only allow MORE speech California can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not. It can't allow less than the First/Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech mandates, but the federal government doesn't prohibit everything that could be prohibited under those restrictions, and a rule that only prohibited illegal conduct would apply differently if it applied California law (or law applicable in California, including federal law) than if it applied only federal law, and differently if it applied the combination of federal and California law than if it applied the combination of federal law and the law of some other state.
  - syshum 4y ago
    You are just being intentionally obtuse, and not really providing anything of substance this conversation. I would like you to cite an example of your claim where CA "can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not"
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I would like you to cite an example of your claim where CA "can, and does, restrict content in ways which the federal government does not" A few illustrative areas: 1. Violations of the California Right of Publicity (Civil Code § 3344). 2. Libel (Civil Code §§ 45, 45a.) 3. Violations of California obscenity law (Penal Code § 311 et seq.). All three of these are laws that have been found enforceable and outside of First Amendment protection, but which impose civil or criminal liability for content which is not (inherently, though there may be some overlap) unlawful to create/distribute under federal law. The first is pretty special to California, the other two are things which are generally viewed as “illegal in the US” in broad outline, but which mostly are a matter of state law, not federal law, with different precise statutory boundaries (and even more differences due to case law) in each state which has a similar prohibition.