60

Freedom of the press means that anyone can publish anything they know without having to obey government gag orders. The government is not required to keep journalists informed. Freedom of the press is not violated if the government tries hard to not leak anything to the press. That's why the Freedom of Information Act exists. It grants journalists access to ...


40

The constitution only limits and gives power to the branches of government. The constitution does not apply to individual citizens. Basically it tells the federal government what it can and can't do. The original constitution and bill of rights (first 10 amendments) didn't even apply to the state governments until the 14th amendment was passed to essentially ...


39

1) They would be absolutely allowed to promote any political agenda as a publisher, but not necessarily as a platform. It's contentious whether famous Section 230 allows them to find a perfect sweet spot: shielded from any liability for content posted by crazy users as if they were merely a platform; having huge editorial discretion in selecting what to ...


35

Brain Z's answer is correct; the 14th Amendment extends the protections offered in the Bill of Rights to the states. This is known as the incorporation clause. So really, at the heart of your question is how can various local police forces arrest people for illegal gatherings in light of states also being bound the 1st Amendment's protest protections? Or, ...


24

You misunderstood that this applies to personal accounts - it was the other way around: they ruled that Trump's "personal" account was de facto a government account and should be treated as such. And it should go without saying that the government can't arbitrarily block people from following and discussing its (even informal) announcements. Trump ...


21

Let's have a look at the text of the First Amendment: 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. emphasis added Notice there ...


19

Facebook can and does actively promote a political agenda. They even formed a Political Action Committee, FB PAC, through which they donate money to various politicians and PACs (and contrary to right-wing narrative, they have been known to give more money to GOP causes). They also sell advertising space on their website for political ads, though this is a ...


18

You have the right to look for other news sources. "Free speech" is about the government restrictions or compulsions, and the First Amendment was originally about Congress alone. (The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as extending those First Amendment protections to cover actions by state and local governments.) It's important to remember that "...


15

People often get this misconception, and it's related to one non-stated factoid: press covering political events are a mutually agreed convention. Politicians give press conferences, and the press broadcasts them. Neither are required by law to do that. The politician thinks they'll be better off by giving the press conference - whether it's to give their ...


15

This subject has come up repeatedly in the US this year: first with the lockdowns to control the spread of Covid-19 and now the curfews and police actions against protestors against police brutality. As other answers have mentioned, the Fourteenth Amendment means that laws of all governments in the US must respect the constitutional rights of all citizens. ...


12

From Britannica: In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the ’40s the ...


11

This is one of these gray areas where technology has outpaced legislation. Technically speaking, Facebook today might be considered a 'publisher', and therefore free to pursue whatever political agenda they desire. The same can be said of Twitter, another major social media platform. However, unlike traditional publishers, Facebook and Twitter have become ...


10

Are we not entitled as American citizens to expect U.S. based social web empires like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, etc., to let us determine for ourselves what is factual and what is not as we consume content over the web? You're free to expect it, but you're going to be disappointed. That's because: Conversely, are American content providers ...


9

How isn't it? What do you think lobbying is? I go to a politician and tell them that I want such and such a policy. If they don't vote my way, I won't vote for them the next time they run. Maybe that's not lobbying in your mind. Perhaps you only want paid lobbying. So I own some stock. Those companies can pay lobbyists. Those lobbyists then ...


9

The scenario highlighted by your question already exists. Federal policy exists where the Government can steer federal monies away from private companies that have discriminatory practices, under Executive Order 11246. Business that perform contract work for the Federal government are prohibited from "engaging in workplace employment discrimination on the ...


8

Rainer P.'s answer already covers that Freedom of the Press doesn't have anything to do with providing information to the press. But even if that weren't true, your question seems to be predicated on a belief that an impeachment trial can be, should be, and must be in the public record for everyone to see and review "Can be" is true enough, and "should ...


7

I read that public officials blocking people on Twitter goes against the 1st amendment. So, what is the difference? To be precise, blocking based on viewpoint was held to go against the First Amendment. The ruling would not apply to blocking for other reasons such as off-topic content, harassment, spam, and so on. President Trump blocked someone on Twitter....


6

Because the only difference between paid lobbying and unpaid lobbying is that you're hiring a professional to do a better job of lobbying than you can do yourself (hopefully). In other words, It is 100% same as hiring a lawyer to do legal work for you instead of doing it yourself; or hiring a speechwriter to make a better speech. As such, paid lobbying ...


6

It falls to the entire "voters choosing legislators vs legislators choosing their voters" meme. If there is an objective criteria for drawing boundaries in a logical, geometrically simple method, then, for the most part, where I choose to locate my residence is my decision about what voting district I wish to inhabit. If a district's boundaries are drawn ...


5

The trivial answer is "none". As other answers have noted, corporate social media is not the US Government. The US Government usually has no statutory power within corporate media to either prevent corporate censorship or compel corporate editing. However, this easily answered question implies a thornier one: if ever a handful of large and powerful ...


5

Law Newz argues that it might be: “It’s unconstitutional when President Trump has said he doesn’t like CNN and the New York Times and then excludes them from a press conference. It’s a content-based ban and the government generally cannot enact laws or restrictions that punish speech based or restrict public access based on content. Courts have held that ...


4

It's a form of free speech. They're protected by the first amendment This is a relatively recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010; until then, there was a federal ban on corporate expenditure dating back to the 1907 Tillman Act. The Citizens United ruling in 2010 overturned that citing the First Amendment on free speech; however it's important to note ...


2

The only current way a gerrymander is considered unconstitutional* is if it serves to disenfrachise protected classes (e.g. people of a specific race or religion, or probably things like gender). The "Freedom Of Association" argument is that because being able to join one party or the other is a voluntary association, political affiliation should be added ...


2

There is no direct solution. You can't stop fake news without affecting real news. If you make the government the "sole guarantee of truth" by legitimizing the take-down of information that it doesn't consider true, you open the door for partisan take-down of information the government doesn't want to be true. It also wouldn't help against information that ...


2

As other answers pointed out, the US constitutional law clearly applies to government entities, not private sector corporations. One might ask interesting questions about those companies trying to "have their cake and eat it, too" by claiming both the right to sort, alter, or suppress user content on their own sites, and a near-total lack of responsibility ...


1

A large number of answers have mentioned the courts' interpretations of the 14th Amendment, so I won't go into that here, but instead I will address a different aspect of the situation. If the Bill of Rights had originally been intended to constrain the state governments rather than only Congress, then it probably would have been included in the original ...


1

Facebook and Twitter exist to make money. They aren't about to promote one "agenda" over another, if it means that half of their users will bail out in anger. Conservatives, especially, are prone to go off and create their own safe spaces - heck, even Wikipedia is too "liberal" for some of them, hence "Conservapedia". (Fox News was basically built along ...


1

If one wants to be exact, lobbying is not free speech. It costs an arm and a leg to hire an influential lobbyist. Lobbyists facilitate groups of citizens making their voices heard to politicians, or at least that's what the SC indicated in their Citizens United decision. In reality, it also facilitates corporations or very wealthy people making their ...


1

TL;DR: Yes, it does restrict free speech, but by how much is debatable. I don't think you can draw a line in the sand to generally determine if something is restricting free speech. Consider the following scenarios: In the cafeteria of a retirement community where residents pay for their meals, on one particular day the cafeteria decides to make the meals ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible