3 ms·

Isn’t this basically restricting speech? Especially if you’re advertising to people across states, I would think this violates interstate commerce.

anigbrowl 1y ago
No.
Cheer2171 1y ago
[flagged]
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  The rental itself may be illegal. The speech around it may not be.
  - drekk 1y ago
    You can already limit speech in america provided the regulation (1) advances a compelling interest (2) through narrowly tailored means and (3) does not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced, i.e. be proportional A good instance where we might draw the line differently despite current first amendment norms is lobbying. Lobbying, at its core, is just speech. Industry leaders and representatives go to meetings (public or private) to talk to congressmen. Thus lobbying has been affirmed as protected speech in our constitutional law The problem is money changes access. And sure we can pursue contribution limits (which is generally constitutional) but lobbyists don't actually care about those -- they welcome the ability to save money. The problem is that they are just so well-connected their speech has disproportionate weight So you could argue limiting their speech advances a compelling interest, but you'd have to think about other factors as well It is just true that every liberty and right has limits, otherwise they could cut the public interest or other individual rights. This is true even in the US which orients itself as largely pro-speech sovereign relative to other states
- dang 1y ago
  Can you please make your substantive points without sneering at other people, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: we've had to ask you this before, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
AJMaxwell 1y ago
No. It's not considered interstate commerce when one purchases goods or services in a state one is visiting. No goods or services crossed state lines.
- eesmith 1y ago
  Not at all true. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause "The Supreme Court issued several opinions supporting that use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers." Heart of Atlanta Motel made the argument that people who wanted to rent a room were neither goods nor services which crossed state lines, and argued they had a constitutional right of association so should be free to racially discriminate. The Interstate Commerce Clause even applies to crops you grow for yourself, which aren't on the market. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed ... The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production." This interpretation also applies to medical marijuana, quoting again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause "In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce."
altairprime 1y ago
You’re describing a presumably-desired outcome here but not why you think this particular limitation would be overturned as a free speech violation. On what basis would you expect that ruling to occur?

anigbrowl 1y ago

No.

Cheer2171 1y ago

[flagged]

SilverElfin 1y ago
The rental itself may be illegal. The speech around it may not be.
- drekk 1y ago
  You can already limit speech in america provided the regulation (1) advances a compelling interest (2) through narrowly tailored means and (3) does not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced, i.e. be proportional A good instance where we might draw the line differently despite current first amendment norms is lobbying. Lobbying, at its core, is just speech. Industry leaders and representatives go to meetings (public or private) to talk to congressmen. Thus lobbying has been affirmed as protected speech in our constitutional law The problem is money changes access. And sure we can pursue contribution limits (which is generally constitutional) but lobbyists don't actually care about those -- they welcome the ability to save money. The problem is that they are just so well-connected their speech has disproportionate weight So you could argue limiting their speech advances a compelling interest, but you'd have to think about other factors as well It is just true that every liberty and right has limits, otherwise they could cut the public interest or other individual rights. This is true even in the US which orients itself as largely pro-speech sovereign relative to other states
dang 1y ago
Can you please make your substantive points without sneering at other people, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: we've had to ask you this before, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

AJMaxwell 1y ago

No. It's not considered interstate commerce when one purchases goods or services in a state one is visiting. No goods or services crossed state lines.

eesmith 1y ago
Not at all true. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause "The Supreme Court issued several opinions supporting that use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers." Heart of Atlanta Motel made the argument that people who wanted to rent a room were neither goods nor services which crossed state lines, and argued they had a constitutional right of association so should be free to racially discriminate. The Interstate Commerce Clause even applies to crops you grow for yourself, which aren't on the market. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed ... The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production." This interpretation also applies to medical marijuana, quoting again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause "In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce."

altairprime 1y ago

You’re describing a presumably-desired outcome here but not why you think this particular limitation would be overturned as a free speech violation. On what basis would you expect that ruling to occur?