Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't even imagine there is a valid legal argument. If somebody calls me, I can say whatever I want. If I want to answer the phone by saying "Department of Defense, how can I help you?" the First Amendment guarantees me the right to do that. Now, I certainly could not call other people and claim to be the Department of Defense. That's fraud. The same applies if I had done something like put up flyers claiming my ph…
I am in Norway, so the First Amendment carries little weight around here; our equivalent is 'Article 100' (of the Constitution) stating pretty much the same thing as the First Amendment. (This is hardly relevant; I just grasped the opportunity to stress that the HN crowd resides in the most peculiar places...)
> Article 100
> There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever.
I always get interested in how other free speech laws are worded because I enjoy the way Madison worded the First Amendment so damn much. When somebody points to an Article # or something like that, it makes my pursuit of this hobby a bit easier.
> 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.
Compare and contrast. One is a grant, essentially a permission, to the people of Norway, and the other is basically telling the US Congress to fuck off because it has no right nor permission and not even a wink and a nod to make any law on the matters which follow. The liberty is inherent, Congress’ powers are not.
Mind this is a translation, I unfortunately do not know any Norwegian to verify the original Article 100.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...
Now compare and contrast with the California State Constitution. I’m providing a link because it is much wordier, and starts at Sec 2 and runs for a few more sections. While California is under the same structures of as the First Amendment in modern times, that wasn’t always the case. If you read the wording here, it is downright inferior to both the US First Amendment and the Norwegians Article 100, spares too many words, and phrases it’s equivalents mostly in a manner of a permission under the CA Constitution rather than telling the State legislature to fuck off. An unfortunate choice, but most of the State’s Constitution is a long tragedy of errors and poor choices, one of the most unfortunate being the choice to grant voters the right to amend the bloody rag by referendum.