Does the First Amendment apply to Twitter censoring an account? It is my understanding that the First Amendment protect free speech from being prosecuted by the government: even then, there are bright lines as to what one may not utter (state secrets for example). According to ABC news: Trump’s attorneys on Friday filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Miami seeking a preliminary injunction against Twitter and its CEO, Jack Dorsey. They argue that Twitter is censoring Trump in violation of his First Amendment rights, according to the motion. QUESTION Why would said case be given any consideration if the 1st Amendment restricts the government from censoring speech (not private organizations)?
The First Amendment could apply to Twitter censoring an account, but it doesn't in this case. President Trump's attempts to return to Twitter are back in the news because he recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in his case against Twitter, arguing that blocking his account violated the First Amendment. Is it even possible for Twitter to violate the First Amendment when it's not a government agency? Generally speaking, the answer is no: a private actor cannot violate the First Amendment, because the First Amendment is a limitation on government action. But every rule has its exceptions, and Trump is trying to exploit those exceptions here. There are three primary exceptions at play: The government can be held responsible for private actors' conduct when it coerces them into acting. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 992 (1982). Here, Trump is arguing that the government coerced Twitter into shutting down his account, and that this coercion amounted to a First Amendment violation by Twitter itself. The government can be held liable a private entity acts based on &quot;significant encouragement&quot; from the government. Blum at 992. As an alternative theory, Trump is arguing that Section 230's promise of immunity for blocking decisions amounted to signficant encouragement. Finally a private actor can be held responible for a civil-rights violation when it undertakes a &quot;joint activity&quot; with the government. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, (1966) (“To act `under color' of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.”). As a second alternative, Trump is arguing that Twitter was working directly with the federal government to identify &quot;disfavored speech&quot; that should be blocked. None of these are invented arguments, but all of them seem prety weak, for a few reasons. First, as far as I know, the Supreme Court has only permitted liability against the government in coercion/encouragement cases, but Trump is arguing that this rule permits him to hold the private actor accountable. There is some support for this theory, see, e.g., Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone &amp; Telegraph Co., 827 F.2d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1987) (“With this threat, Arizona &quot;exercised coercive power&quot; over Mountain Bell and thereby converted its otherwise private conduct into state action for purposes of § 1983.”), but I don't know that it's widely accepted. Second, and probably more importantly, Trump fails to address a serious &quot;bad fact&quot;: that he was still president when Twitter blocked him. This means he is essentially accusing himself of coercing or encouraging Twitter to block his account. If the courts are going to extend the First Amendment to allow liability against private actors, I doubt they're going to do it on these facts.
Can he name a particalur one, like Linkin Park? Or that would be considered non-allowed type of advertising? Generally speaking, that does not constitute unlawful advertising. Public figures are allowed to broadcast their preferences on issues that are more sensitive than topics of music. There might be few, rare exceptions where something like this would be outlawed, but most likely that has to do with a regime's censorship of specific bands or music styles rather than with a general prohibition.
Religious protection from federal warrants is not a First Amendment issue. If protected at all, the best argument would be in RFRA, the federal statute implemented in 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1 et seq. It provides that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion..." except if the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." It is my guess that every court in the U.S. would agree that a search warrant issued upon probable cause is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and having an agent or two walk through the house (or whatever is necessary in order to exercise that warrant) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
It is not decided whether such, in areas, filming can be prohibited. In a &quot;public forum&quot;, First Amendment rights are maximally protected, and this includes filing (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 in particular §A(1) for a summary of the law on this question). In Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 the court refined public forum doctrine to distinguish quintessential, limited, and nonpublic fora. In a nonpublic forum, the government may &quot;reserve the forum for its intended purposes&quot;: but, such a reservation must be viewpoint-neutral. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 states that &quot;The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time&quot;. In a nonpublic forum, demonstrations can be forbidden, especially when demonstrations are incompatible with the purpose of the forum (example: military bases). The particular question you raise has not ended up in court. One may be tempted to reason that First Amendment rights can be arbitrarily curtailed in a non-public forum, but such a restriction would have to have appropriate justification – the restriction would be subject to strict scrutiny. Simply saying &quot;We don't want people filming inside the holding area&quot; is not a valid justification. But, the police are not required to announce their legal argument in advance. If you get busted and film, and they make you stop, you can sue for violation of your First Amendment rights. Your attorney would then need to make a good argument that this restriction is to be subject to strict scrutiny, and that it fails.
Taking the US as an example, the Constitution states 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. Congress or a state government hasn't prohibited you from comparing platforms. Another private entity has. And, that's fine. You're free to launch the app as a separate website, or print out the flyers and hand them to people on the bus, or publish your own monthly magazine comparing various platforms, so you still have freedom of speech and of the press. As an example, if you write a letter about how great the government of North Korea is to the letters department at Stamp Collectors Magazine, and they don't publish it, have they violated your human rights? The app store restriction may be quite dumb. After all, the built-in web browser allows the reading of the exact same news. But there's no law against being dumb.
I believe you are using rule of law when you mean due process. The former refers to equality before the law and the subjugation of executive government to the law while the latter refers accepted measures of justice and fairness in the administration of the law and, in the United States, to the supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature (the situation is reversed in the UK). Assuming that to be the case, the due process clause in the fifth amendment provides that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...". That is, actions against Huawei must only be taken as permitted by the law. The law that permits the President to institute the Huawei ban is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. As such, at face value, this is a legitimate exercise in executive power. Huawei has the right to challenge the ban in US courts, as such, they have been afforded due process.
That's an old idea that has been tried several times before (such as the first, being Unvarnished: Website Lets You Review People (And Trash Them) | HuffPost, which no longer exists); and one of the latest incarnations is Peeple (mobile application - Wikipedia). There are lots of legal liabilities, including defamation and harassment/stalking, even with the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation which (mostly) protects the website owner from others' speech posted on the site (your mileage may vary due to jurisdiction). The only way such a site would survive is to do what Peeple and other sites have done: greatly limit the speech allowed, such as limiting to only positive reviews, giving the subject complete control over what does appear on their profile, only allowing "opt-in" profiles, verify identities, etc. You would have to implement full GDPR compliance; but various lawsuits will either shut you down before you get far enough to launch or soon after and force you to greatly limit the scope of the site. Most lawyers would advise you to find something else to do with your time and money.
Defamation requires communication to a third-party I can say (or write) anything I want about a person directly to that person and, unless it is a threat, they have no recourse at all. I can call them a liar, a thief, a Nazi, or a goat fornicator. Of course, I have to be careful – calling them a “bastard” might be a slur on their mother communicated to a third-party (them) which would give her a right to sue although that would require a literal and largely archaic use of the term. That said, you do need to check with your lawyer if you can redact names in the face of a subpoena - complying with a legal obligations is a legitimate use of personal data under GDPR.