Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> writes: > Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any > such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional,
For those outside the USA (and probably many inside too ;) ... The USA laws don't work that way; the first amendment *only* prevents the government from censoring the non-government, it has no power over private people or organizations from censoring their own speech. There is no such thing as a "free speech right" in the USA *outside of* the laws themselves. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Note the "Congress shall make no law" part. That's all there is. Nothing else is covered, nothing else is prevented, nothing else is guaranteed. So no, censorship in the USA is NOT unconstitutional. Only laws that cause censorship are. (as an amusing twist, laws that try to *prevent* private censorship could be considered unconstitutional, since that's also government trying to control speech) HOWEVER... USA law doesn't stop private individuals or organizations from entering into contracts that limit speech, and providing for damages etc if violated, as long as the contract is fair and valid. The government can thus offer a contract whereby a clinic (for example) receives funds in exchange for an agreement to limit speech. This is not considered censorship since the clinic may choose to not enter in to the contract and thus not be limited. Voluntary is OK, involuntary is not. This is no different than, for example, an NDA you must sign in exchange for employment. That such clinics may in fact go out of business without government funding, while relevent in reality, is irrelevent in this context. [and I couldn't tell if you were referring to the manual, or the federal program referred to therein, so I tried to cover both, as neither is legally considered "censorship"]