RKBA and the internet

[slidemuzik]

A lot is made of precisely what is protected under the 2nd Am. There is debate on what constitutes "arms". Would the definition of "arms" be the same as "weapon"?

If so, then I would contend that a weapon would include information. Information is power has been a recognized axiom forever.

If you accept those premises then I wonder if the 2nd Am could be used to prevent tampering, or "managing" of the internet in this country?

Never heard this discussed before. What say the legal scholars?

 

[CharlieBT]

Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang.

Bang-bang-bang.

I see some holes in it.

 

[Texan Scott]

Ummm....

We already have an amendment for that- the 1st.


This protects our right to publicly say things and express ideas other people don't like.

Unless you're talking about PREVENTING others from saying things and expressing ideas YOU don't like? REPRESSING freedom of speech, not defending it?

Using the 2A? In addition to being a completely silly and theatrical overreach, it would be antithetical to American freedom and completely wrongheaded.

That's NOT what you meant though, is it?

 

[AlexanderA]

No. That's stretching meaning of the 2nd Amendment beyond all recognition.

However, there is a legitimate dispute over the meaning of "arms" in the Amendment. In the 18th century, "arms" had a specific meaning (a "term of art") having to do with weapons that were useful in a military context. (In other words, guns used purely for hunting, and having no military usefulness, were not "arms" within the original meaning of the Amendment, while swords and cannons were.) Justice Scalia re-interpreted this significantly, in his opinion in the Heller case, so as to include weapons "in common use" for personal protection, but to potentially exclude weapons, like machine guns, that, although military, were not "in common use" among the civilian population.

 

[slidemuzik]

I'm not talking about content of the internet. That would be a 1st Am issue. I'm thinking more in terms of things like a "kill switch" that has been talked about. I was curious if there could be an argument made to prevent the government from blocking the internet on the basis that it is a form of citizens "arming" themselves, therefore a right protected in part by the 2nd Am.

I know this is a stretch. That's never prevented lawyers from arguing, and in some cases being awarded, judgements that stretch the law. I'll bet you could find a bunch of examples regarding the EPA without breaking too much of a sweat.

Just trying to look at familiar subjects in a different way. Sometimes something worthwhile shakes out. Disagree but no need for any bashing.

 

[cbrgator]

In what reality could the internet be considered as falling within the definition of "arms?"

 

[Sam1911]

Very interesting thought experiment, but the internet does not fall into the definition of "arms" as is or was or likely will be understood. Certainly not as we use it here at THR.