Humane Society Sues Amazon

• Free speech? First Amendment issues? Yes, Amazon has a constitutionally protected right to sell what it likes, except if the matter falls within the numerous exceptions to freedom of speech. For that matter, commercial speech receives a lower level of protection than some other forms of expression, but that also isn\'t the issue here. What disturbs me is that, somehow, a shocking number of people seem to think that Amazon is _bound_ by the first Amendment to make available a publication to which it might otherwise object, as if Amazon is under some constitutionally imposed _duty_ to do so. That\'s just plain wrong. The first consideration when discussing Freedom of Speech is whether the entity is a _private_ entity or a _government_ (or working in concert with the government, or functioning as a government, e.g., company towns in which the company performs functions traditionally associated with a government): constitutional guarantees apply to government actions, but only rarely to _private_ entities. Still, it is an incredibly common misconception that First Amendment protections apply to private entities. The cited Humane Society? quote also implies a clear misunderstanding: classifying something as protected speech would really only apply when looking at whether or not _legislation_ improperly curtailed someone? freedom of speech (one wonders about the nature of their legal pleadings...presumably, though, not drafted by the same people who wrote the HSUS website). As an intelligent and informed journalist, though, you have a duty not only to inform your readers but also to conduct adequate research. Think of it this way: by arguing in favor of applying the First Amendment rights to the actions of _private_ entities, one tramples many other rights of the same entities. Applying the First Amendment to a private entity\'s every action severely curtails its ability to make decisions. I doubt most Americans would support, e.g., Congress passing legislation that told Amazon which books it could and could not carry (that would definitely give rise to First Amendment issues, although Amazon is clearly prohibited by law from carrying some items) or forcing a shopping mall to allow rabid political protestors to hold a protest on its grounds (possibly allowed in those few states that have determined shopping malls are public fora and thus required to allow at least some free speech not supported by the mall? owner). Interestingly, applying Constitutional guarantees such as Freedom of Speech, etc. to private entities is much more common in countries with socialist leanings, not in robust systems such as our own that rigorously protect individual rights. For that matter, there are numerous documented cases of Amazon pulling books, removing negative reviews, etc. without explanation, which, again, is within their _rights_ as a commercial entity that isn\'t bound by the First Amendment. Thus, hypothetically, if Amazon argued that the First Amendment applied to this case, then they might also be bound by the First Amendment in many other situations, such as removing customer comments or distasteful books, a situation Amazon would likely find untenableUjust as your newspaper is well within its rights to remove this comment. ;)

• If Amazon.com sold child pornography, would you call that free speech? This is not about animal rights, but about the promotion of an illegal activity. Cockfighting is illegal in all but two states. It is unfortunate that people will categorize this as an animal rights issue (those crazy animal-loving activists!), rather than framing it within the context of the law.

TotalComments: 2