I was very happy to see this in my inbox just now:
“The security of property, and the freedom of speech always go together; and in those countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else his own.” – B E N J A M I N F R A N K L I N
Bitcoin’s Protection under the First Amendment
There is so much gold here:
Most (if not all) governmental restrictions targeting bitcoin have failed to account for the fact that, under bedrock First Amendment principles, bitcoin activity is entitled to First Amendment protection. First, bitcoin consists entirely of the creation and transmission of information, which is speech protected by the First Amendment. Second, bitcoin activity is at minimum protected expressive conduct. And third, participation in the bitcoin network is expressive association separately safeguarded by the First Amendment.
Can we go back to an era where people can write and debate like the founding fathers?
Now we get "I grew up a middle class kid" vs "No one ever leaves my rallies. I have the hugest rallies of any politician ever seen and have you seen my golf game?"
reply
So true. I'm not through it yet, but this is such an excellent paper from what I have seen so far. I assume it was meant to be used by lawyers in court.
reply
153 sats \ 1 reply \ @Golu 25 Sep
I didn't know that much protection is granted to Bitcoin in US constitution. I understand it doesn't mention Bitcoin directly but it implies so. Don't you have some please system there to grant Bitcoin a legal status? But, I think Bitcoin doesn't need any confirmation from governments.
reply
Sometimes it feels like the constitution only means what the current people in power wants it to mean.
reply
Let us know how strong this protection seems to be. I don't feel like Freedom of Association holds much legal weight, otherwise pretty much all labor and economic regulation would be unconstitutional.
reply
I'll give it some thought. Interestingly, though, freedom of association is used to argue for labor unions. I think your point was the opposite, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
reply
Not quite, but sort of. It should certainly support the rights of "scabs".
reply
Expressive association carries more weight. Bitcoin as a communications network. Maybe ordinals will finally do some good!
reply
Let's hope
reply
I brought up this theory when I was there for Wolf, knew I was in good company... and now to see Ross percolating it into the Overton window 🤌🍿
reply
It's not exactly a reach constitutionally. Whether the government acknowledges that fact is another story.
reply
Constitutional its common sense, but yea thats why the timing of this post-Chevron is material. Are our enemies really going to want to tango with the Supreme Court over this? And if so to what end?
It bears repeating, patriots in control.
reply
Trump did appoint what three justices to the bench?
reply
Conveniently, none of the 3 that dissented on the overruling ;)
reply
deleted by author
reply