3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThis 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.