What part of "Congress shall make no law" is too difficult for you to grasp?/QUOTE]
Wow, you really don't understand the First Amendment, do you. If the person writing the blog were an employee of United, United could fire him but they cannot make him take down the information. That's because his employment isn't covered by the First Amendment, but what he posted is. You can look up the loads of case law on that yourself. If the person were an employee who disclosed confidential information then United could force the information be taken down. He wasn't. You can look up the loads of case law on that as well. If the information were copyrighted then United could file for copyright infringement. It isn't, and they didn't. You can look up the loads of case law on that yourself as well.
In your interpretation 60 Minutes and other news "exposés" would never come to light because, according to you, the private entities being exposed could merely demand the story not air or be printed.
What part of "Congress shall make no law" is too difficult for you to grasp?
Those are the first words in the first amendment. Now, go on, tell me what interpretation of the first amendment has the first damn thing to do with United Airlines, a private company. Please, by all means, cite some case law that shows it.
Otherwise, be a grown up, say I was wrong, and move along.
Wow, you really
don't understand the First Amendment, do you. If the person writing the blog were an employee of United, United could fire him but they cannot force him take down the information. That's because employment is not covered under First Amendment protections. You can look up the
loads of case law on that yourself. If the person were an employee who disclosed confidential information then United could force the information be taken down. He wasn't, and he didn't. You can look up the
loads of case law on that as well. If the information were copyrighted then United could file for copyright infringement. It isn't, and they didn't. You can look up the
loads of case law on that yourself as well. If the story were false United could potentially sue if it was defamatory. United isn't claiming that. You can look up the
loads of case law on that yourself as well, because I'm not here to do your research for you and you are the one who is demonstrably ignorant on the subject. In other words, there is nothing this kid did that any news organization couldn't have done and United would have been powerless to stop because of . . . you guessed it . . . the First Amendment. And he's as protected as the news division at CBS. The only reason United is going after him is because they know he won't have the financial means to fight them.
That is what they are counting on — not case law because there is no case law on their side in this and they know it.
In your interpretation
60 Minutes and other investigative reporting targeting companies or individuals would never come to light because, according to you, the private entities being exposed could merely demand the story not air or be printed. The mere fact that they are routinely on television and in print (including even "confidential" emails and intra-corporate memorandum) pretty much makes of mockery of what you
think you know. Perhaps you'd care to pass along your theory of First Amendment protections only applying to those reporting on the government to the lawyers for Trinity Industries, Ford (Pinto), Greg Mortensen, those exposed in CBS's report on High Frequency Trading, pharmacy giants Sanofi and Novartis, and the hundreds to thousands of exposés run every year in the press and in blogs.
Finally, I'm not the one who needs to grow up. I actually
passed my civics classes. And since you obviously did not, and since you do not know how to properly conduct yourself in discussions on the web in a polite and civilized manner, we're done here.
Good day.
