I had a few thoughts on reading this report.
One is the words “potentially unlawful.” So maybe lawful, maybe not. Let’s pick the “it’s not lawful” prong, which steps on the legislators toes, the legislator also haveing first amendment rights.
Another is what is the remedy? Tell her to stop doing that? That’s it?
Another is what about tortuous interference with business? can be smaked to Warren as well as to Amazon and other search engines. A civil claim comes with money damages.
Warren sent an official letter, not just her personal opinion. That certainly implies using her governmental authority to suppress free speech.
I’d think it’s a form of prior restraint, since she wants Amazon to modify the search algorithm so that this book does not come up in the list of publications on the subject.
I haven’t read the Supreme Court Bantam Books v. Sullivan ruling, but according to the article the ruling determined it is unconstitutional for state officials to pressure a private company to suppress “objectionable” speech.
Yes, Warren (the legislator) as an individual has 1st amendment rights. However, she wrote this letter in an official capacity, as a representative of the US government. She is using the government to suppress the free speech rights of the authors.
As to the remedy, unfortunately, that’s for the court to decide.