Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1122472)	3/3/2019 4:48:41 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574449

Exactly what do you think Law and precedent is, Brumar? It's the Legislative and Judicial branches of GOVERNMENT. That's what it's for to clarify the nuances of the Constitution. Freedom of Speech is not just something in the Constitution. It has a massive amount of related case law and precedent strengthening it over the years. In fact, there are multiple cases related to digital media that are working their way to the Supreme Court right now. Eventually, case law and SC interpretation will catch up to technology, but we're no there yet. Here's an article on some of these subjects: Can the First Amendment Survive the Digital Age? The newspaper and broadcast companies that championed speech and press rulings of the 20th century don’t have the power or financial strength they once did. The dominant technology companies have not shown that same kind of stewardship of the First Amendment.... What will expanding business rights mean? A series of First Amendment rulings sought by private corporations has freed them from limits in such areas as advertising, ingredient listings and political contributions. About half of the successful First Amendment appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court today focus on corporate rights — a big change from previous decades, according to a survey of a half-century of court decisions by Harvard law professor John Coates. Some say that the expansion of any speech rights serves all comers. Others say this shift goes against the intent to protect the rights of citizens against powerful government and corporate interests.... The First Amendment did not find its place at the core of our rights without many struggles over two centuries. Sunshine Week is a good time to remember there are fresh battles ahead.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1122472)	3/3/2019 4:51:06 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574449

Here's a summary of established case law and Constitutional law as it relates to Freedom of Speech. -------- What Does Free Speech Mean? Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech includes the right:Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).Freedom of speech does not include the right:To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1122472)	3/3/2019 6:41:16 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thomas A Watson Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574449

Got some more info for you. The Supreme Court is watching this issue very closely and will eventually afford First Amendment protections to the social media. It's going to take time though. Here's where we are. freedomforuminstitute.org Although the printing press was “born free” in this country, the same cannot be said for the electronic media. As newer technologies were developed and put into use, courts and other policymakers have been slow to accord them full First Amendment status. Pool observed in Technologies of Freedom that “[a]s new technologies have acquired the functions of the press, they have not acquired the rights of the press.” Legal scholar Laurence Tribe has said this history reveals “a curious judicial blindness, as if the Constitution had to be reinvented with the birth of each new technology.” Thus, contrary to the First Amendment tradition, the electronic media tend to be born in captivity. THE INTERNET BREAKS THE MOLD Unlike other new media, the Internet presented courts with immediate First Amendment problems, and just as quickly, the courts accepted the challenge. Congress precipitated this judicial review by imposing broadcast-type restrictions on “indecent” communications through passage of the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The restrictions were short-lived, for in Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Supreme Court held that the restrictions on both the “display” and “transmission” of indecent communications online violate the First Amendment.The Reno opinion represents a significant departure from the usual way in which new communications media are treated. New media are usually born in captivity, and the Court takes a great deal of time — usually decades — before recognizing that the First Amendment applies, much less that full protection is appropriate. Here, rather than presuming that the Internet should receive less protection, the Court held that full First Amendment protection applies unless the government can prove otherwise. In an opinion written by Justice Stevens (author of the Pacifica decision), the Court explained: “Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, ‘the content of the Internet is as diverse as human thought.’ We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.” The Supreme Court expressly distinguished the Internet from other technologies, such as broadcasting, noting that “the Internet can hardly be considered a ‘scarce’ expressive commodity.” The Court pointed out that online communication “includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video and still images, as well as interactive real-time dialogue.” It added that the Internet is not as “invasive” as radio or television, and that “[n]either before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry.” Though the Court’s decision in Reno set the baseline for analyzing First Amendment questions involving Internet communications, it by no means addressed the many difficult questions that will arise from this complex medium. In this regard, two cyberspace cases from the Supreme Court’s 2001 term forced the justices to reexamine basic constitutional assumptions underlying the obscenity and child pornography doctrines. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Court struck down a federal ban on “virtual” child pornography in the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) as a “textbook example” of why the law permits facial challenges to overbroad statutes. It found that a prohibition of images that “appear to be a child” engaging in sexual conduct where no actual children were involved prohibited a substantial amount of protected expression and violated the First Amendment. Meanwhile, in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to enjoin enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), successor to the ill-fated Communications Decency Act. The Court rejected the court of appeals’ reasoning that the borderless nature of the Internet rendered unconstitutional restrictions on expression deemed “harmful to minors” where legal liability is based on “community standards.” It remanded the case to the lower court to further explore the meaning of obscenity law in the Internet Age. Both cases tackled issues that go to the heart of the Court’s complicated rulings governing the regulation of sexually oriented speech. By touching on core issues that define the essential nature of obscenity and child pornography, these two cases breathed new life into disputes about what kind of speech may be excluded from First Amendment protection and how courts should draw the line between protected and unprotected speech. Moreover, their connection to this new medium confirms that technological change will continue to fuel debates over the meaning and scope of the First Amendment.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1122472)	3/3/2019 6:56:42 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574449

Now, PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA, this is the most recent and most interesting US SC case brought to it from the NC SC. Basically, a former sex offender who served his time was being barred from accessing Facebook and was charged under NC law with a Felony for creating an account, because the state was trying to protect children from him stalking them. The US SC overruled NC State Law, essentially saying that First Amendment rights applied when it comes to access to social media like Facebook and Twitter, because they are acting as Public Squares where people get access to current events and information and that is where most political speech is occurring. So the US SC concluded those corporations had no right to infringe on this guy's First Amendment access rights. supremecourt.gov Here's their ruling: By prohibiting sex offenders from using those web- sites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing cur- rent events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”Reno, 521 U. S., at 870. In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exer- cise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even con- victed criminals—and in some instances especially con- victed criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. it follows with even greater force that the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of our modern society and culture. It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S., at 255. That is what North Carolina has done here. Its law must be held invalid. The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. So to sum up, Brumar, my statements to you are proving to be true. Already the Supreme Court has ruled that access to social media may not be curtailed, especially when it comes to political speech. So Twitter and Facebook and Google who are currently in the process of banning and suppressing conservative voices are actually acting contrary to settled US Supreme Court Law, which is the law of the land. Those guys just don't have good enough lawyers. Otherwise, they could fight this all the way to the top and win their access back. If this sex offender can do it, then it would be easier for someone like Alex Jones or any other person to do it. Terms of Use is no defense for a corporation in the courts.