Comment on Amazon Says It Has a First Amendment Right to Union Bust
Somecall_metim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I thought (as a Brit, so correct me if wrong) that the first amendment meant you could talk all kinds of shit the government without repercussions, not about allowing union busting.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It technically means the government needs to pass a very high bar before it can restrict any kind of speech, that bar being strict scrutiny.
Of course, the view of the public and the court historically has been that blocking union busting activities has passed strict scrutiny, since it a) is justified by the government’s interest in preventing the kind of violence that occurred when union busting was allowed, b) doesn’t restrict actions outside of union busting, so it’s narrowly tailored, and c) is the least restrictive method yet proposed, only other method I can think of is compelling union membership for everyone.
catloaf@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
And the first amendment also guarantees the right to assembly, including associations of trade unions. Amazon’s right to speech doesn’t overrule the people’s right to assembly.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s not that high, tbh. The modern day Strict Constructionist courts have deferred to simple legislative/executive claims of “protecting public safety/national security” in an enormous number of cases. Its honestly comic to see folks who beat their chest at the Federalist Society on issues of liberty and justice discover their spines have turned to jello the moment a state attorney leans on them.
Businesses tend to enjoy similar deferments. Courts will turn a blind eye to all sorts of company shenanigans when they interfere with union elections.