Under Pruneyard, First Amendment should apply to Google in CA

Apologies for this law-related post. But in the retarded Pru...
A Jurisprudence is Performed  08/08/17
Fascinating Also strong poast/moniker synergy
biglaw associate asking if link is worksafe @ 11pm  08/08/17
ty
A Jurisprudence is Performed  08/10/17
nah, acting as an employer, even the fucking gov't gets away...
hank_scorpio  08/10/17
But Pruneyard rests in part on the idea that ca has broader ...
Jean Jacques Jingleheimerdood  08/10/17


Poast new message in this thread



A Jurisprudence is Performed


10:24 AM - August 8th, 2017

Apologies for this law-related post. But in the retarded Pruneyard decision, the Cal. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment applies to SHOPPING MALLS because they "provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising those rights [of speech and petition]." If that is true for shopping malls (it isn't), it's 100x more true for Internet search engines, particularly one with the vast majority of the market share like Google does. It would make no sense to hold that a privately owned shopping mall is somehow a more important public venue for distributing speech than Google. The CASC had the chance to overrule Pruneyard a couple years ago and didn't, over a MAF dissent. So these 105 IQ "No First Amendment rights over private companies!" claims aren't even true in California.


biglaw associate asking if link is worksafe @ 11pm

(LM95)


10:29 AM - August 8th, 2017

Fascinating

Also strong poast/moniker synergy


A Jurisprudence is Performed


10:06 AM - August 10th, 2017

ty


hank_scorpio


10:18 AM - August 10th, 2017

nah, acting as an employer, even the fucking gov't gets away with extra shit in that context


Jean Jacques Jingleheimerdood

(his name is my name)


10:49 AM - August 10th, 2017

But Pruneyard rests in part on the idea that ca has broader 1A protections than the Fed gov, or pretty much anywhere else. If a fucking mall gets that treatment, wht not an internal blog where people are encouraged to discus difficult issues?

Im sure the ca courts will find a way to shitlib their way out of it but there's really no reason Pruneyard shouldn't apply.