3 ms·

> First amendment has always applied to government actors not also to companies who are enforcing sanctions. So if goverment can outsource enforcement of sanct

> First amendment has always applied to government actors not also to companies who are enforcing sanctions. So if goverment can outsource enforcement of sanctions to private actors then first amendment does not protect anything at all?

vkou 4y ago
It protects you from going to jail for hosting this code on your own git instance. And GitHub isn't obligated to publish your speech, and you can't use the FA to compel it to do so. If you could, I'd be getting in line to get my fifteen minutes of airtime on the telly.
- marshray 4y ago
  If the USG prevents you from contracting the services of publishing platforms, I think that would be a proper 1st Amendment issue. Probably the USG would argue that its interest in suppressing terrorist funding and money laundering overrides the 1st Am. (IANAL/IMHO)
  - threeseed 4y ago
    > If the USG prevents you from contracting the services of publishing platforms, I think that would be a proper 1st Amendment issue. You don't have the right to compel a third party to enable your free speech. And nothing is stopping Tornado Cash from running their own public Git server.
    - marshray 4y ago
      > You don't have the right to compel a third party Sure, but that's not what's going on here. The USG is compelling all third parties to refuse to provide the sanctioned entities with any services, which includes publishing services. > nothing stopping Tornado Cash from running their own public Git server. They will need to find an ISP willing to sell them bandwidth, which may prove difficult.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- woojoo666 4y ago
  So if I host the code on my own server, and accept pull requests and modifications, the government can't force me to take it down right? I think that's the real question people are unsure about. Are the actions by github by their own choice or forced by the sanction?
  - vkou 4y ago
    In this case, maybe not, since the code isn't sanctioned. In a general case, if you are distributing illegal speech, yes. Strangely enough, the first amendment does not protect me speaking, say, a copyrighted work...

vkou 4y ago

It protects you from going to jail for hosting this code on your own git instance. And GitHub isn't obligated to publish your speech, and you can't use the FA to compel it to do so. If you could, I'd be getting in line to get my fifteen minutes of airtime on the telly.

marshray 4y ago
If the USG prevents you from contracting the services of publishing platforms, I think that would be a proper 1st Amendment issue. Probably the USG would argue that its interest in suppressing terrorist funding and money laundering overrides the 1st Am. (IANAL/IMHO)
- threeseed 4y ago
  > If the USG prevents you from contracting the services of publishing platforms, I think that would be a proper 1st Amendment issue. You don't have the right to compel a third party to enable your free speech. And nothing is stopping Tornado Cash from running their own public Git server.
  - marshray 4y ago
    > You don't have the right to compel a third party Sure, but that's not what's going on here. The USG is compelling all third parties to refuse to provide the sanctioned entities with any services, which includes publishing services. > nothing stopping Tornado Cash from running their own public Git server. They will need to find an ISP willing to sell them bandwidth, which may prove difficult.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
woojoo666 4y ago
So if I host the code on my own server, and accept pull requests and modifications, the government can't force me to take it down right? I think that's the real question people are unsure about. Are the actions by github by their own choice or forced by the sanction?
- vkou 4y ago
  In this case, maybe not, since the code isn't sanctioned. In a general case, if you are distributing illegal speech, yes. Strangely enough, the first amendment does not protect me speaking, say, a copyrighted work...