| ▲ | p_j_w 13 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
There are no carve outs for national security in the First Amendment. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | smt88 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Yes there are. The First Amendment is limited by compelling government interest, which (in practice) means it can be fairly arbitrarily by SCOTUS. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendmen... | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | nickelpro 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The SCOTUS opinion does not rely on a national security interest to justify itself, merely that the ban is content neutral and thus is subject to intermediate scrutiny. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Spunkie 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
This is an especially superficial take, sure the Constitution says nothing about national security but reality sure does... Any person that has ever gotten a security clearance has given up some of their first amendment rights to do it and if they talk about the wrong thing to the wrong person they will absolutely go to jail. And as always the classic example of free speech being limited still stands. Go yell FIRE in a crowded movie and see how your dumbass 1st amendment argument keeps you out of jail. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||