the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.
if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.
why aren't the original internet domains like.com or .net considered under the 1st amendment?
I thought part of the issue was that Obama offshored the administration of the ICANN registry.
has there been legislation or court cases stating they're not? generally curious as to why you think this is the case.
seems obvious that online speech is protected under the 1st amendment, but we live in a clown world, so I don't doubt you.
the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.
if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.
Weren't they given these domains by the government in the first place at least for the original lot?