from thedonald.win:
MARSH .V ALABAMA. COMPANIES HAVE NO ABILITY TO RESTRICT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH.
MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA
I’ll keep posting this until it gets traction.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
PLEASE GAIN TRACTION.
A private company could not restrict speech, even though it owned the sidewalk the speech was being distributed. THIS APPLIES TO TECH COMPANIES.
A private company could not restrict speech, even though it owned the sidewalk the speech was being distributed. THIS APPLIES TO TECH COMPANIES.
******************************************************************************
I would think that Facebook and Twitter etc. have sufficiently invite the public in, to qualify as the town square of today, where free speech is required.
However, more recent cases have no been quite so positive in this regards. With Commie Takeover of our Government, Courts, Universities etc. not sure a class Action lawsuit would do any good.
Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1]
Cyber Promotions wished to send out “mass email advertisements” to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails.
Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL’s servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.
The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level.
In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh v. Alabama and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.
Recently the case has been highlighted as a potential precedent to treat online communication media like Facebook as a public space to prevent it from censoring speech.[2][3]
However, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck the Supreme Court found that private companies only count as state actors for first amendment purposes if they exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state.”
Supreme Court strikes again.
You will like this more recent ruling:
The US Supreme Court just ruled that using social media is a constitutional right
If Social media is the public square when states want to ban sex offenders from using it it si also the public square when social media wants to ban people for political purposees.
grey_whiskers wrote:
from thedonald.win:
MARSH .V ALABAMA. COMPANIES HAVE NO ABILITY TO RESTRICT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH.
MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA MARSH V. ALABAMA
I’ll keep posting this until it gets traction.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
PLEASE GAIN TRACTION.
A private company could not restrict speech, even though it owned the sidewalk the speech was being distributed. THIS APPLIES TO TECH COMPANIES.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reposting for traction. Sharing.
Woke up to a snow covered Texas. Not safe to drive the 45 mile road to church. May God clean our gubmint white as this snow covered land.
thanx for locating the MARSH V ALABAMA decision. here’s an excerpt from the as related to Articles 1 & 14:
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties.