The Supreme Court rules 2nd Amendment right to “keep + bear arms” — why should Free Speech supporters and technology companies be happy?

News: The Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision today in the gun-control case in District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring the DC gun control law banning handguns unconstitutional. You can download the opinion here. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion and applied a close textual analysis of the Second Amendment, along with a review of the history of various uses of the words “keep,” “bear” and “arms” in England, state constitutions, and contemporaneous writings.

Analysis: Here are my initial reactions. First, it is amazing that this is the first time in 217 years that the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on the Second Amendment right. That’s a very long time of silence. Second, I’m not an expert in gun control, so I can’t speak to those issues. But for technology companies dealing with speech-related technologies, the Court’s precedent on guns may actually be very good for speech technologies.

As I’ve said in the past, there are only 2 provisions of the Constitution that deal with technologies: (1) the Second Amendment’s “arms” and (2) the First Amendment’s “press,” referring to the printing press. If the Court interprets the Free Press clause in a parallel manner to the way it has interpreted the Second Amendment, it is very possible that Congress’s present or future attempts to regulate speech technologies under copyright law could be unconstitutional.

My theory is laid out in detail in my article “Freedom of the Press 2.0,” an early draft of which you can find online.

UPDATE: A number of people have read this post and may be skeptical about the connection. I’ve written a few more words about the historical connection between guns + the printing press, between the 2nd Amendment and the 1st, on a subsequent post you can find here. Although the Framers were dealing with two very different technologies (guns + press), the origin of and debate over both clauses followed a strikingly similar path.

And I should add Justice Scalia himself cites (p. 29) to a Massachusetts supreme judical court opinion and a 1868 con law treatise (p. 46) that make the direct analogy to the freedom of the printing press and the right to bear arms:

The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.”

The [2nd Amendment] clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press.”

And then Justice Scalia himself draws the analogy to the First Amendment, although only the free speech clause (free press is often overlooked):

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.” (p. 63)

UPDATE: I’ve just written an Essay on this topic. Click here to download a copy.

4 Responses to The Supreme Court rules 2nd Amendment right to “keep + bear arms” — why should Free Speech supporters and technology companies be happy?

  1. Jake says:

    Is there a ‘warming effect’ then to guns as well – in the same way you claim there is a warming effect to copyright laws?

  2. curtismo says:

    two words jury nullification , if you dont like a law ,or don’t believe in the case you are sitting thru jury duty on, vote not guilty ,this is your greatest power and you do not have to explain yourself to no one for the way you vote

  3. […] impact on regulation of speech technologies: It’s a bit over our head too. But over at the Utube blog, Edward Lee, an IP prof at Ohio State U.’s Moritz College of Law, argues that, for technology […]

  4. […] for Supreme Court action) and Dan Slater at Wall Street Journal’s law blog for refrerence my last post that suggests how the Supreme Court’s decision in the gun case (DC v. Heller) is helpful […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: