3 ms·

"It's still not a case of the New York Times' free speech rights being infringed, because the New York Times does not have a free speech right to use a third pa

by declan 13y ago

"It's still not a case of the New York Times' free speech rights being infringed, because the New York Times does not have a free speech right to use a third party's printing presses to publish newspapers. If the police were trying to keep the New York Times from publishing using its own printing presses, that would be different." I took the liberty of rephrasing the parent comment to target dead tree media. The First Amendment problems with such an order to a third-party printer are left as an exercise for the first year law student. That is not to say it's always a slam dunk case; there's a continuum between "FYI Facebook," "Please ban," and "Here's a formal order to ban."

pdonis 13y ago
the New York Times does not have a free speech right to use a third party's printing presses to publish newspapers Isn't this correct? Can't a third party refuse to let the NYT use its printers? The First Amendment problems with such an order to a third-party printer As I said in the post you responded to, AFAIK the government is not issuing an "order" to Facebook; Facebook is voluntarily allowing the police to do this. If FB was being "ordered" to do this, that would be different. But as I said in the post you responded to, I still don't think it would be a First Amendment issue; it would be a private property issue (the government trying to restrict how Facebook can make decisions about its property, namely who can use its services).
- declan 13y ago
  This is an area where your instincts may say X, but modern First Amendment jurisprudence says !X. The 1A protects expression from state action and comes close, in modern jurisprudence, to prohibiting prior restraint including an order to kill or suspend a FB account. It's clear that some degree of state action pressure on intermediaries (publishers, FB, web sites) is illegal and unconstitutional; I was responding to your point that I read as arguing the contrary in all cases. Whether a particular state action crosses the 1A line is a fact-dependent analysis -- some of the examples in this rather vague article strike me as falling on the wrong side of that line. Also note that some state constitutions, including California's, have free speech protections that go beyond the federal 1A.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    This is an area where your instincts may say X, but modern First Amendment jurisprudence says !X. This would come as no surprise :-), but can you give some references to case law? I was responding to your point that I read as arguing the contrary in all cases. I was arguing that there is no "pressure" on FB since they are voluntarily providing this access to the police. (Of course, I can only base that on the information that's been available to the public; it's entirely possible that what's gone on in private between FB and the government is more coercive in nature.) Also note that some state constitutions, including California's, have free speech protections that go beyond the federal 1A. Hm, good point.

by declan 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

the New York Times does not have a free speech right to use a third party's printing presses to publish newspapers Isn't this correct? Can't a third party refuse to let the NYT use its printers? The First Amendment problems with such an order to a third-party printer As I said in the post you responded to, AFAIK the government is not issuing an "order" to Facebook; Facebook is voluntarily allowing the police to do this. If FB was being "ordered" to do this, that would be different. But as I said in the post you responded to, I still don't think it would be a First Amendment issue; it would be a private property issue (the government trying to restrict how Facebook can make decisions about its property, namely who can use its services).

declan 13y ago
This is an area where your instincts may say X, but modern First Amendment jurisprudence says !X. The 1A protects expression from state action and comes close, in modern jurisprudence, to prohibiting prior restraint including an order to kill or suspend a FB account. It's clear that some degree of state action pressure on intermediaries (publishers, FB, web sites) is illegal and unconstitutional; I was responding to your point that I read as arguing the contrary in all cases. Whether a particular state action crosses the 1A line is a fact-dependent analysis -- some of the examples in this rather vague article strike me as falling on the wrong side of that line. Also note that some state constitutions, including California's, have free speech protections that go beyond the federal 1A.
- pdonis 13y ago
  This is an area where your instincts may say X, but modern First Amendment jurisprudence says !X. This would come as no surprise :-), but can you give some references to case law? I was responding to your point that I read as arguing the contrary in all cases. I was arguing that there is no "pressure" on FB since they are voluntarily providing this access to the police. (Of course, I can only base that on the information that's been available to the public; it's entirely possible that what's gone on in private between FB and the government is more coercive in nature.) Also note that some state constitutions, including California's, have free speech protections that go beyond the federal 1A. Hm, good point.