,
20 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I have notice some confusion in the twitterverse about the relationship between the 1st amendment and the banning of Nazis, 'Alt-Righters', White Supremacists, & others for what they allege as protected speech. First and formost, the forum where these statements is 1/
/are made are not government managed or run - Instagram/Facebook even though they are used by the public to publish a myraid of things. Therefore, these entities can moderate and limit speech including banning those they believe violate their rules. SCOTUS has held 2/
that the "First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only." U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1, 5, 14. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… 3/
the Court further held that "Property does not lose its private character merely because public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14." Facebook even though its stock is traded publicly, is privately owned by it's shareholders. 4/
Therefore, there is ample judicial precedent for them to limit or moderate speech as well as who may use there platform. Other limitations on speech concern the use of it to influece US public opinion by foreign actors - propaganda. In 1938 Congress passed FARA - 5/
the Foreign Agents Registration Act - justice.gov/nsd-fara This Act requires anyone who acts on behalf of a foriegn principal or nation to register with the US government. A failure to do so can result in both criminal and civil liability. There has been much 6/
discussion on this topic as of late. The Congressional intent of this statute, reason why it was enacted, was to counter Nazi propaganda in the early years of WW2. In Viereck v. US 63 S.Ct. 561 (1943) SCOTUS supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/… lays this purpose out nicely 7/
The Court held "(t)he purpose of the Foreign Agents Registration Act is to identify agents of foreign principals who might engage in subversive acts or in spreading foreign propaganda, and to require them to make public record of the nature of their employment." 8/
See Foreign Agents Registration Act § 1 et seq., 22 U.S.C.A. § 611 et seq. In Rabinowitz v. Kennedy 84 S.Ct. 919 (1964) SCOTUS made it unambigous that those representing foriegn interests in the US must register under FARA supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/… the Court held 9/
that "(a)ttorneys who engaged in general law practice and who had been retained by Republic of Cuba to represent Cuba and its governmental agencies in legal matters including litigation in United States were obligated to register under..." 10/
...Foreign Agents Registration Act. Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, §§ 1, 3 as amended 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 611, 613." FARA is an essential and reasonable limitation on Free Speech. It requires individuals, companies, and other outlets of information dissemination to make 11/
their benefactors publicly known so they can be monitored by our government and known by the public. In the event that any of the aforementioned 'banned' individuals were receiving direction, compensation, or both from foreign actors and failed to register, they can be 12/
prosecuted. A more controversial limitation on free speech but nevertheless still law can be found in the Smith Act britannica.com/event/Smith-Act The act criminalized speech which "...advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government..." In Dennis v. US 71 S.Ct. 857 13/
(1951) SCOTUS upheld the act stating in part "Right of free speech is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but societal value of speech must on occasion be subordinated to other values and considerations. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1." It was limited to some degree in Yates v. US 14/
354 U.S. 298 (1957) where the Court essentially held that a prosecution under the Act couldn't be based upon a abstract view or goal of violent overthrow but required more specific plan or conspiracy. Regarding our current plight, its clear Russia desired a Trump presidency 15/
and they took affirmative steps to make that happen with members of the Trump campaign in several instances. They also used social media and 'influencers' to manipulate public opinion as well as cyberly attack election infrastructure. Through surrogates they have also 16/
attempted to foment social and political chaos & unrest in various way. An enemy state (s) or non-state hostile actor(s) either directly or through surrogates attack our sovereignty or body politic under the guise of free speech. I believe once all the strings are connected 17/
it will demonstrate, among other things, these acts of aggression. /end
Para 17 add cannot* before attack.
last paragraph - these were coordinated* acts of aggression by a hostile nation state and its surrogates.
