24
posted ago by NomadicKrow2 ago by NomadicKrow2 +24 / -0

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.

Comments (19)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
FreeTheSignal 1 point ago +1 / -0

did you read the Subsequent history? if you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, finding that MNN could not be considered a state actor in how it operates, and as such, was not bound to protect free speech rights as a state actor would be expected.[1] The Court stated that the MNN is immune to the First and Fourteenth amendments due to its status as a private company. The opinion argues that First and Fourteenth Amendments only apply to “governmental abridgment of speech” and not to “private abridgment of speech”

i think we need to push more for 230 reform by just removing the "otherwise objectionable" loophole

1
NomadicKrow2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina Try this one. Facebook and Amazon directly named as "protected space" under the first amendment.

1
FreeTheSignal 1 point ago +1 / -0

the problem with that one is it just ruled the government couldnt restrict your access to those sites not that the companies couldn't restrict your access. we both want the same thing free speech protected on the internet but i think our only chance is section 230 reform

1
NomadicKrow2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

230 reform will never happen until the democrats are being restricted.

1
FreeTheSignal 1 point ago +1 / -0

i agree thats also true republicans missed their 1 and only chance to protect free speech on the internet and they dont even seam to realize that they will be the first ones removed. well they might finally now but they are 4 years too late

1
NomadicKrow2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is abrogation. Does our legal system allow this? Because Kavanaugh's opinion flies in the face of the original ruling.

1
FreeTheSignal 1 point ago +1 / -0

i completely agree with what your doing and after reading it i got excited im just not sure it applies to the internet

1
NomadicKrow2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

If it doesn't apply to the internet, then the 1A only applies to the printing press and the 2A only applies to muskets.