Krispy says: << considering my sorted past >>
I don’t normally comment on typos, but this one is such a humorous malapropism that I couldn’t resist.
The expression is “sordid past”, for those who don’t get the joke.
Damn, I wish I could remember more from my journalism law class.
Newspaper editors do have a distinct right to publish or not publish a letter written to them, as their paper is, first and foremost, a vehicle of profit.
Message boards and newsgroups, which I believe are generally sponsored by either an ISP or another entity (i.e., the illustrious Reader) would logically follow the same doctrine; they are present only as a service to customers of the ISP or, as in the case of the SDMB, as an ad revenue vehicle. In both cases, a private entity. It would therefore be the decision of the entity or their appointed moderators to ban/modify/delete postings or posters.
However, defense lawyers could make an argument (albeit a rather weak one, IMO) that the precursor to the Internet, ARPANet, was a government entity, which would make it a public forum, subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Equally, if the message board for some reason resided on a public university’s server, it would again be subject to the courts whims. As I very highly doubt this is the case, I think the smart money would be on the decision being overturned.
Internet speech law is a very new field, with little law in place to govern it. I have a feeling that the multinational nature of will make it a treacherous area of the law at best. Look for the courts to keep out of it as much as possible, if I guess correctly.
Then he said, “That is that.”
And then he was gone.
-Dr. Seuss, * The Cat in the Hat*
Lemme see if I can attack this. Your First Amendment right is the protection against anyone trying to keep you from expressing your views. It is, like all rights, subject to limitations. You do have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to the use of some particular forum to express said opinion.
If someone “creates a public forum,” he or she is thereby accepting the expression of any and all views which meet the criteria he or she expresses in whatever terms of service/editorial policy he or she establishes. These should (but legally need not) be spelled out for the benefit of those desiring to express views.
No judge can legally prohibit a person from exercising his or her first amendment rights as defined here. A judge can for good cause prohibit the exercise of such rights under certain conditions. A good example of this would be a spam-vendor sued by his former ISP (itself sued by spam victims) being enjoined from obtaining a new account on that service under any name or through any agent for the purpose of spamming. This was a legitimate case decided recently in the NYC area. Also, judges have a broad range of discretion in setting conditions for probation or suspended sentences. Someone trafficking in child pornography on the Internet might be given probation subject to never owning/leasing a computer or accessing the Internet.
As was noted above, one’s right to express one’s views in a public forum is subject to the rules under which that forum operates, whether it be a newspaper letters column, a moderated Internet board, a soapbox in the park, or whatever. As someone once pointed out, “Freedom of the press belongs to whoever owns the printing press.”
Hey, Dex, are you sure KO wasn’t trying to reference his “assorted pasts”?
Why do I not believe a word of this alleged disclaimer? C#3 is eternally trying to “get over” on the policies of the SDMB and anyone who’s been here awhile should realize this to be the case.
Amen, Lawrence.
RTA,
How can a disclaimer be alleged? It most certainly was a disclaimer. Sounds like you want to allege that I was insincere…I wasn’t…why don’t you quit stalking me eh?
CKDextHavn, Doctor J,
Dexter got me on that one. I did mean “sorid past”, although Doc, you are correct in that “assorted past” would fit as well… I accept whatever dumbass points are coming to me for the “sorted past” phrase…::hanging head::
Polycarp:
Ah, Constitutional Law… :::stretching, sitting up:::
Italics above were mine, but clearly the point here is that THE GOVERNMENT shall not restrict free speech. (Yes, the word is “Congress,” but I imagine any interpretation of law that a judge used to justify such a restriction (public safety notwithstanding) would be thrown out. As would a fiat ruling not based on an interpretation of law.)
Your Employer, your Church, your Gun Club, your spouse, etc., can ALL prevent your exercise of free speech, any time, anywhere, in any legally acceptable way. (Eg., assault or battery NOT okay.) The same applies to private property - billboards, sides of buildings, corporate email, etc. - and, I’m sure, to private newsgroups, whether moderated or not. Hell, if they wanted to, and in absence of contracts to the opposite effect, I bet your long distance carrier could censor you. And that would apply to digital alphanumeric communication, too.
“The public has always assumed things to be that way” does carry some legal weight, but not enough to override private property rights, in most cases.
The question in the OP (re: the judge) may still be open, but owners of a newsgroup, website, ISP, phone company, etc. can ban or censor anyone they want to.
Building on what {:-Df said…
The first amendment is read to prohibit the government from forcing anyone to speak in a given manner.
The most famous case to make this point is perhaps ** West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette v. ** (Jehovah’s Witnesses, and everyone else, can’t be forced to say the pledge of Allegiance). In essence, the Court said that a person’s free speech rights are as badly violated when s/he is forced to say something by the authorities as when s/he is prohibited to do so.
This reasoning has been applied to newspapers, shopping malls (IIRC), and other commercial entities. Broadcast television and radio stations may have to accept some special classes of ads and follow equal time rules.
I’m not sure to whom a USENET newsgroup would be considered to belong, but so long as it is not treated as a government entity, the government can’t force it to say anything.
Anyone want more cases? I just got out my Constitutional Law hornbook… Lots of cases here [rubbing hands together with great excitement.]