The 1A does reach outside US borders: it would be pretty clearly unconstitutional for Congress or any governmental body to criminalize speech critical of the US if made in other countries.
I don't know what the last two sentences you write mean.
--jks
======= Justin,
Apologies for the muddle. My q. is two fold. First, if 1A is the withholding of the state's ability to censor, then where does the state get the right/power to allow other institutions to censor [firms]? As in, "hi, I'm the government. I can't censor your speech but I'm going to give these other folks over here the power to censor your speech?" Where in the parchment does this power come from? If the 14th A constrains firms in their hiring practices and HR policies with regard to race and sex, then why isn't 1A accorded the same ability to constrain firms in their regulation of speech? To be cynical, the parchment sucks for dealing with labor relations law. 1A forms part of the basis for the right of collective bargaining, why not the right of speech?
I wrote: Along
similar lines isn't this what the Myanmar/MA purchasing law case is about,
namely, a state government should have the same rights a corporation has?
This "Massachusetts/Burma law" case is currently before the Supremes. One of the issues Prof. Stumberg, who is arguing the case, related to me was that if corporations have the right to use ethical criteria in their purchasing decisions vis a vis other firms or govts., then states should enjoy the same right since corporations exist by virtue of the states right to grant a privilege to incorporate. MA wants to use ethical criteria in deciding which firms to buy goods from based on whether they do business in Myanmar. It is a law designed to sanction firm behavior, not the behavior of Myanmar itself. Stumberg said he was counting on the conservatives on the bench to be sympathetic to this line of argument [esp. C. Thomas].
Ian