Google, Twitter and Facebook are violating Constitutional Law

[goldenequity]

Whaddyathink?

[goldenequity]

Marsh v. Alabama


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama


The town of Chickasaw, Alabama was owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Company (the Company), a private corporation. With the exception of its private ownership, the town operated as any other and was closely bordered by and virtually indistinguishable from surrounding municipalities. Marsh (defendant) was a Jehovah’s Witness who stood on a Chickasaw sidewalk owned by the Company and proceeded to distribute religious literature. She was told she could not distribute literature without a permit and that no permit would be issued to her. When she protested, she was arrested and charged with violating Alabama (plaintiff) state law. She argued that her activities were protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but her argument was rejected and she was convicted. Marsh appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Decision

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter authoring a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed authoring a dissent.

The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially using a balancing test, weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted, however, that the latter occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

=========

Citation. 326 U.S. 501, 66 S. Ct. 276, 90 L. Ed. 265, 1946 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, was arrested for trespassing after attempting to distribute religious literature in a privately owned Alabama town.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A private entity that acts like a governmental body and performs a public function is subject to the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Facts. A Corporation owned a town called Chickasaw in Alabama. The town was accessible and used freely by the public except for the fact that the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation owned title to the town and paid the police. Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness was told she needed a permit to distribute her flyers. However, Marsh declined to obtain a permit and refused to leave the sidewalk. Marsh was arrested and charged with violating Alabama’s anti-trespassing statute.
Marsh claimed that applying the statute to her violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

Issue. Is the Constitution applicable to privately owned towns?

Held. Yes, it applies, because the town acts like a government body. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) first recognizes that if Chickasaw had been a municipality the anti-trespassing statute would not be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court specifically states that a private town is not the same as a private homeowner. Meaning, it is not appropriate to suppress unwanted religious expression in the town like it would be in a private home.

Discussion. The more an owner opens up his property to the public, the more the Constitution is applicable. Here, the town was treated like a town, where the public was free to do as they pleased. The fact that the property (the town) is privately owned, does not justify restricting fundamental liberties. Therefore, Alabama’s attempt to convict Marsh cannot stand.

=====

The SCOTUS concurring and dissenting opinions rendered
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

[Itsback]

Bump

[r3volution 3.0]

Absolute nonsense

None of the big online service providers have a state-sponsored monopoly.

There is no law preventing me or the OP from starting our own search engine, idiot-squawking service, or data-mine.

The reason no one does is that the existing companies are highly efficient in producing the services which the people want.

...I don't want them (except Google search, which is magnificent), but so what; use them, don't, it's up to you.

I'll take this opportunity to recommend to everyone a book: The Triumph of Conservatism, by Gabriel Kolko (now deceased).

This will explain to you how regulatory schemes (such as are now being proposed for Google et al) actually get put into law.

...spoiler: regulation is almost always an intentionally anti-competitive device lobbied for by the industry itself.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Absolute nonsense

None of the big online service providers have a state-sponsored monopoly.

There is no law preventing me or the OP from starting our own search engine, idiot-squawking service, or data-mine.

The reason no one does is that the existing companies are highly efficient in producing the services which the people want.

...I don't want them (except Google search, which is magnificent), but so what; use them, don't, it's up to you.

I'll take this opportunity to recommend to everyone a book: The Triumph of Conservatism, by Gabriel Kolko (now deceased).

This will explain to you how regulatory schemes (such as are now being proposed for Google et al) actually get put into law.

...spoiler: regulation is almost always an intentionally anti-competitive device lobbied for by the industry itself.

Well said. I don't understand why this even gets debated on this site. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone interested in the liberty movement.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well said. I don't understand why this even gets debated on this site. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone interested in the liberty movement.

You'd think...

[acptulsa]

Absolute nonsense

None of the big online service providers have a state-sponsored monopoly.

No? You're sure about that?

You haven't heard any rumors that Facebook was funded on startup by the CIA? You haven't heard Google has similar ties? You can say authoritatively neither is covertly controlled by the government?

Google does seem to have gotten itself a monopoly somehow. Can you say the government, which did fund it as a startup, has nothing to do with that?

Seems to me a case could be made both are government entities. Do you think the Bill of Rights ought not apply to things you and I and every other taxpayer bankrolled from the ground up?