4 ms·

Wouldn't regulating who you can peer with potentially violate the 1st amendment? Since you're effectively regulating who someone's[0] computer can talk to? [0

• cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • RobotToaster 2y ago
    I'm not American, I'm just vaguely familiar with American law, and was curious how that wouldn't be the case.
• gruez 2y ago
  Like most things in law, it's not straightforward as "it's speech so there's nothing the government can do about it". I don't know the case law on this, but given that the FCC has been around for decades, most of their regulations are about what/how companies/people can talk to, and their authority hasn't been struck down, I'm going to guess that they're on solid legal footing when it comes to enacting regulations.
• jcranmer 2y ago
  The 1st Amendment is not an absolute bar on any restrictions on speech whatsoever. It is a bar on state action to limit (or compel) protected speech on the basis of content. I could load you up with legalese here, but the rather simple explanation of the matter is that, if it's not restricting speech for political opinions (in a very expansive sense of political), then it probably will pass constitutional muster. If I have the underlying context right here, this is effectively regulation prohibiting people from lying in the course of their normal operations, which smells a lot like a typical fraud statute, and government restrictions on fraud-like things have almost always been upheld as constitutional. (The main exception I'm aware of is US v Alvarez, but even there, SCOTUS said it was only a problem to ban lying for lying's sake; banning lying with the purpose of getting a benefit is acceptable).