Who enjoys freedom of the press? In the 18th century it was decided that in the U.S.A. "freedom of the press" would prevail. "The press" is the printing press, a technology for mass-producing copies on paper. Thus freedom of the press would appear to mean freedom to use that technology, a freedom belonging equally to those whose job is to do that and those who do it only once. But sometimes people use the phrase "the press" to mean those whose occupation is to make and distribute copies of their writings, or else those who report the news (via the web as well as the old-fashioned way?). It seems some people construe "freedom of the press" to be a freedom belonging only to that class of people, perhaps even according them special rights that others don't have. Which is it?
This is an important question that affects consumer advocacy, blog-based-journalism, political speech and spending, and probably other things. People disagree about what the answer is. This podcast episode features both sides of the argument. Professor Volokh holds the view that the freedom of the press is "freedom to print", "freedom to use the printing press". Freedom of the press is the freedom of everybody to use the printing press. Assessing the grammar of the clause, he argues that this points in the same direction. The text says "freedom of speech or of the press". He points out that speech is not a group of people. It would be odd to treat "speech" as an activity, but to treat "press" as a group of people given the parallel construction. This side of the argument is described more in this article by Prof. Volokh. Professor West argues that there is a defined group of people called "the press" that deserves protection under this clause. This article explains Prof. West's position in detail. The main point is that "An expansive definition of the press means virtually complete overlap between press and speech and thus no meaningful way to interpret the Press Clause." If "press" means simply the right to publish speech, then it becomes redundant because courts have held the right to publish speech is given under that "speech" portion of the clause. Justice Stevens's concurrence in Citizens United also argued for "some kinds of identity-based distinctions" regarding whether a person is a member of the press. Each side can give examples of the term "the press" being used at the time of the First Amendment that is consistent with their favored interpretation. I think to get the best idea of the two sides to this question, you should read Citizens United (including all dissents and concurrences), read the two articles linked above, and listen to the podcast episode.
The Constitution said people have the Rights to Properties. No it doesn't. There is no such provision. The closest I am aware of is the so-called &quot;takings clause&quot; in the Fifth Amendment, which reads: Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. There has been a good deal of litigation over just when when a &quot;taking&quot; occurs under this provision. The classic and most obvious case is the use of eminent domain to aquire actual title to the property by a government (Federal, State, or local). This is always a takign, and compensation nis required. The more questionable cases have occurred when some law or regulation leaves the owner with title, but significantly restricts the uses to which the property may be put, particularly when the existing use becomes unlawful. Courts have ruled in different ways in such cases, but I think the current standard is that when a regulation removes all, or almost all, economic value from the property there has been a &quot;regulatory taking&quot; and compensation must be paid. But as far as I know, a tax on the property has never been considered to be a taking inn this sense.
No Any such law would violate the US First Amendment as an improper restriction of speech and of the press. If done by the court rather thiygh a law, it would also conflict with 17 USC 105 which says that: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government Courts have restricted video and still photography of court proceedings, on the ground that the presence of cameras would disturb court sessions and distract witnesses and jurors. But that would not apply to the proceedings of an appellate court.
It's hard to say, under the Twitter TOS. They do not claim that copyright is transferred to them: &quot;You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)&quot;. But you do license the content: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services. The totality of conditions, including the Twitter Rules, is ever-evolving and not apparently contained in a single link. From what I can tell, there is no condition that prohibits a user from copying tweets into a book. There are numerous statements about &quot;respecting copyright&quot; which refer to taking material that is not licensed to Twitter and redistributing: nothing about redistributing licensed material.A plain reading of the first bold sentence says that you can make your content available to the world, not restricted to &quot;retweeting&quot;.
You've identified exactly the right question: whether the person's subjective expectation of privacy, when viewed objectively, is the "justifiable under the circumstances". (Smith v. Maryland) The Supreme Court hasn't addressed how this test applies to ISPs and website requests. However, this question has been addressed by several circuit courts of appeal. I'll build a list of example cases. Many find that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this information, but there are some cases that go the other way, and there is some nuance regarding exactly what information is being given away. US v. Beckett (11th Cir. 2010): the information consisted of the identifying information transmitted during internet usage and phone calls that is necessary for the ISPs and phone companies to perform their services. It is unreasonable for Beckett to have been unaware that such information was being transmitted to the ISPs and phone companies and so he “assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the [information].” United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 510 (9th Cir. 2007): Analogously, e-mail and Internet users have no expectation of privacy in the to/from addresses of their messages or the IP addresses of the websites they visit because they should know that this information is provided to and used by Internet service providers for the specific purpose of directing the routing of information. Like telephone numbers, which provide instructions to the "switching equipment that processed those numbers," e-mail to/from addresses and IP addresses are not merely passively conveyed through third party equipment, but rather are voluntarily turned over in order to direct the third party's servers. Regarding your secondary question about a "secret machine" that the government develops to get access to contents of an envelope without opening it, that is very similar to the situation in Kyllo v US 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (internal quotations removed): [...] obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search-at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. [...] Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home.
This could be a violation of 18 USC 1030 (and a crime). A number of things go into requirements for conviction under this law. First, it has to be a computer, which is defined as an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device Any printer that I have encountered in the past 40 years counts as &quot;a computer&quot;. Second, (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—...(C) information from any protected computer; It is highly likely that the person printing has to receive some information from the printer, and respond accordingly so you have your &quot;obtains information&quot; element. Maybe not useful information, but information nevertheless. It also has to be a protected computer, (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States Well, a computer connected to the internet is a protected computer, see US v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918. Also, the access must be &quot;without authorization or exceeds authorized access&quot;. The law doesn't explain with &quot;without authorization&quot; means, but the latter is defined as to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter If the law were stated in terms of &quot;prohibited access&quot;, meaning &quot;express denial of permission&quot;, and if the computer owner had set the computer to &quot;prohibited access&quot; by default (password protected), there would be no issue -- accessing the computer is prohibited. &quot;Unauthorized&quot; can also mean &quot;has not been explicitly authorized&quot;, i.e. lacking any indication one way or the other. Every computer access is initially unauthorized, until authorization is granted; and re-trying a login after mis-typing a user name (and being denied access) is not a violation of this law. There does not appear to be case law that addresses the status of computers just left open to the public, and whether using a computer that is so exposed constitutes &quot;unauthorized access&quot;. Also, it is not clear that the defendant in this case has &quot;obtained information&quot;, since with printing, information flows into the computer. There is also a clause about recklessly causing damage, but I don't see what damage would result (&quot;damage&quot; is defined as &quot;any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information&quot;), and how printing would be &quot;reckless&quot;. It seems somewhat unlikely that this would be deemed to be a crime, though if you experiment, you could be on the cutting edge of new case law.
Law The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment): The original ruling is this: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm. Commentary If these instances are correct then it would seem clear that Freedom of Speech is being honored as it's the result of speech, not the speech itself, that could be an offense. You seem to think that it should be illegal, but only if it results in a panic that endangers people. If people ignore you, you think it should be protected by your first amendment rights. That's not how the law works. The law tries, among other things. To establish norms for human behaviour. For example, you will be punished for driving an automobile while intoxicated, even of this does not result in you running over somebody. In the words of the supreme court: If your actions "are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger", the congress has the right to prevent you from doing so, despite the first amendment.
Generally, no matter where you are, the answer to your question(s) is largely going to be a fact dependent analysis. Just so we're clear, I want to be sure you're using the term pseudonym in the way that it's generally accepted or understood to mean, being a fictitious name typically used by an author (this could be book, blog, a paper &ndash; whatever); but not as an alias or a false identity used to mislead people about your qualifications or official position. Assuming you are using a pseudonym in the way it would typically be used: as a mechanism to write and publish under a name other than your own so as not to have credit, or discredit be given to your actual identity, than I cannot see this being a problem anywhere, nor could I find any laws that pertain to this. (You've not asked about copyright/trademark, which poses different legal issues but is also not insurmountable if done correctly.) Generally, if you are publishing something, you have the right to publish anonymously or use a nom de plume (aka:a pseudonym or pen name)...this has been done throughout history and throughout the world by many famous authors. Reasons differ and the examples for such are endless. I have heard of a famous "pulp" fiction writer having used one when writing a children's books; people do it to overcome biases and exposure associated with their name (both positive and negative); during WWII Jewish authors used them to avoid being discounted or arrested based on their name and lineage. In the 1700's (when the U.S. was coming into its infancy) many writers and journalists used pseudonyms, and while the use itself wasn't illegal, they did so to write controversial and often illegal articles, papers, and even letters to the editor, that criticized governments or monarchies and their practices. Some of the most famous pseudonyms were for that purpose. Ben Franklin used to almost exclusively write under a pen name and create elaborate characters to go along with them. Famous authors like Dean Koontz and Stephen King, both used pen names when trying out new genre's or to avoid over-exposure &ndash; especially when releasing at the same time. Many famous women authors, throughout history, used to write under male pen names because women couldn't be published or at least not as easily. Most famously was probably the Federalist (Federalist Papers), written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (under the pseudonym Publius), who published 80 or so papers calling for the ratification of the United States Constitution. These were very dangerous writings for their time. When I read your question, however, I worry that you seem to be suggesting something other than simply a pseudonym for these various typical purposes. Maybe I'm wrong, but when you say hide behind, and you are talking about using Ph.D., or Dr., or some other title that would denote special education or training, you are treading into different territory if the purpose is to mislead or misinform people: not about who you are, but about what you know based on who you are. There is a big difference. So, for instance, Dr. Seuss (who actually began his career writing and drawing political parodies and cartoons) wrote children's books using Dr. as part of his nom du plume, which was his prerogative as nobody was mislead or harmed by the fact that he chose to put Dr. in front of his name. He was not posing as a doctor or giving advice about medical issues, so nobody detrimentally relied on his writings based on that fact. However, if someone wrote a non-fiction book about life saving holistic cures for cancer (I'm just pulling topics out of my head), and the author called himself Dr. Doe, or you write a book about prevention of suicide and you put Ph.D. after your name, and people who read the books detrimentally rely on the information because you've mislead them about your expertise &ndash; that is not just a pseudonym and it could definitely leave you vulnerable to legal problems. You cannot hide behind a title to exploit people by suggesting you're qualified to proffer information in which you have no training or expertise; this is not a nom du plume, it is a fraudulent misrepresentation. With regard to whether or not you have a right to hide behind a pseudonym on the internet? E.g., assuming I don't break any laws, can an internet host/provider publish my real name? that really depends on the site you post on. It is your responsibility to read their privacy disclosures to find out. Facebook, for example, has a "real name" policy, which disallows this practice. Other sites may allow you to create any screen name you want, but require a real name for registration purposes for a variety of reasons, one being if they need to have it for law enforcement purposes. Regardless of the policy of the web host, if you do break the law, or end up getting sued based on your writings, all it would take to reveal your identity is a subpoena arising out of a lawsuit. While using a pen name is seemingly legal in and of itself, pretty much anywhere, whether or not doing so could lead to criminal or civil liability, or whether your real identity could be exposed, is largely dependent on how you undertake to use your fake identity. Impersonating certain licensed professionals, or government officials can be a very slippery slope, and could be illegal or lead to liability, in an of itself. Personally, I would stay away from using any.