4 ms·

Do you have any additional references to cite regarding your claim? Cause the constitution itself only makes references to "the press" in the first amendment,

Do you have any additional references to cite regarding your claim? Cause the constitution itself only makes references to "the press" in the first amendment, which you can reproduce in full, since it's so short: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (edit: I don't mean that as a challenge, I am genuinely curious if you know more about this than I presume to. Sorry if that came off a little catty) And perhaps i wasn't explicit enough, i'm not claiming that the USPS is a right (it isn't), but the point was that it is important enough that it was established in the Constitution, although i would want to dig up additional resources as to whether that is an act of practical expedience, principle, or both. Regardless, the question still stands. Why doesn't the US government do for the internet what it does for mail?

ctdonath 15y ago
Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg-style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed". Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context. There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).

ctdonath 15y ago

Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg-style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed". Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context. There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).