Am I the only one who beleives that it would have been a more effective arguement to try and use the 4th amendment instead of the 1st? Violating free speech is just a weak claim, but "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." seems quite relevent here. But I am also not a lawyer.
Am I the only one who beleives that it would have been a more effective arguement to try and use the 4th amendment instead of the 1st? Violating free speech is just a weak claim, but "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." seems quite relevent here. But I am also not a lawyer.