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
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

The T.Rex didn't see his end coming either. All those fucking teeth for nothing.