First Amendment rights
Jul. 9th, 2021 09:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengrSince former President Trump is apparently filing lawsuits in an attempt to regain access the social media platforms he's been banned from, I figure it's time to remind folks about how the First Amendment works.
OK, lets take these in order. The religion clause says the *government* can't act *for* or against a religion *as* a religion. But it does *not* say that something being part of your religion gets you a free pass if it violates a law (unless that laws is specifically aimed a religion or religions).
It also doesn't say that "free exercise" of your religion allows you to try to force other people to live in accordance with your religion's rules.
Freedom of speech is again a matter of the government not being able to control what you do and don't say. But it says nothing about *consequences* to your speech. Libel, slander and obscenity laws all are cases of your speech having consequences.
Likewise, private citizens and groups are are not restricted from saying "you can't say that on my property". If you are in a public space, or on your own property, they don't have a say about it.
Well "disturbing the peace" does come into play, but that's about *how* you are saying it, not *what* you are saying.
Not the "on their property" bit. That's what makes it legally for social media companies to ban you or limit what you say. It's *their* soapbox you are using. If they object,, you are pretty much stuck unless you can make a claim of discrimination.
It's not violating your freedom of speech, because you can say things elsewhere.
Freedom of the press is much the same, except rather than individuals, we are dealing with "publishers". And website owners *are* publishers. Just as you can't force a newspaper or TV station to print/air your words, you can't force a website to carry them either. *They* have editorial control, not you.
Want t be able to say anything you want? Start your own site. Just remember that you are subject to the laws about libel, slander and obscenity. Also, if you are using a hosting company, *they* can object to your content.
Now as to "peaceably assemble", the "peaceably" is the biggie. That's the difference between a legitimate protest or demonstration and a riot. And yes, the definitions get abused a *lot*. In both directions.
Finally we have "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That one is fairly obvious. But again, *how* you do it matters. See my comments above about the difference between protests and riots.
I will note that you are more likely to get you "petition read/listened to if you aren't screaming or name calling.
Anyway, getting back to Trump, he'll almost certainly be claiming his freedom of speech is being violated. But in actual *fact* what he wants is to violate the social media company's freedom of the press by forcing them to publish things they don't want to.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
OK, lets take these in order. The religion clause says the *government* can't act *for* or against a religion *as* a religion. But it does *not* say that something being part of your religion gets you a free pass if it violates a law (unless that laws is specifically aimed a religion or religions).
It also doesn't say that "free exercise" of your religion allows you to try to force other people to live in accordance with your religion's rules.
Freedom of speech is again a matter of the government not being able to control what you do and don't say. But it says nothing about *consequences* to your speech. Libel, slander and obscenity laws all are cases of your speech having consequences.
Likewise, private citizens and groups are are not restricted from saying "you can't say that on my property". If you are in a public space, or on your own property, they don't have a say about it.
Well "disturbing the peace" does come into play, but that's about *how* you are saying it, not *what* you are saying.
Not the "on their property" bit. That's what makes it legally for social media companies to ban you or limit what you say. It's *their* soapbox you are using. If they object,, you are pretty much stuck unless you can make a claim of discrimination.
It's not violating your freedom of speech, because you can say things elsewhere.
Freedom of the press is much the same, except rather than individuals, we are dealing with "publishers". And website owners *are* publishers. Just as you can't force a newspaper or TV station to print/air your words, you can't force a website to carry them either. *They* have editorial control, not you.
Want t be able to say anything you want? Start your own site. Just remember that you are subject to the laws about libel, slander and obscenity. Also, if you are using a hosting company, *they* can object to your content.
Now as to "peaceably assemble", the "peaceably" is the biggie. That's the difference between a legitimate protest or demonstration and a riot. And yes, the definitions get abused a *lot*. In both directions.
Finally we have "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That one is fairly obvious. But again, *how* you do it matters. See my comments above about the difference between protests and riots.
I will note that you are more likely to get you "petition read/listened to if you aren't screaming or name calling.
Anyway, getting back to Trump, he'll almost certainly be claiming his freedom of speech is being violated. But in actual *fact* what he wants is to violate the social media company's freedom of the press by forcing them to publish things they don't want to.
Mostly yes
Date: 2021-07-09 11:18 pm (UTC)>> [The First Amendment] also doesn't say that "free exercise" of your religion allows you to try to force other people to live in accordance with your religion's rules. <<
In fact, I would say it says exactly the contrary: that forcing other people to live in accordance with your religion's rules violates those people's right to free exercise of their religion, and is therefore invalid.
>> I will note that you are more likely to get you "petition read/listened to if you aren't screaming or name calling. <<
There's a big caveat on this one. Your lived experience will probably align with this. Unfortunately, just for starters, having fewer of the boxes marked "White", "male", "straight", "cis", (add whichever more you like) generally shows a markedly greater reduction in getting one's petition read/listened to. (Cue the obvious examples from the US south, plus Compton's, Stonewall, Chicago and the rest of '67/'68, and Kent/Jackson State. Again, just for starters.) When it reaches the point that no one will listen to a petition in their chambers of power, the petitioners will likely take to the streets and look to win in the court of public opinion. And if that fails, violence, sometimes death, and occasionally revolution are likely consequences. And way too many people have to decide where their breaking points are, and how much they are willing to break instead.