Source: https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/tag/free-speech/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:12:45+00:00

Document:
Several posts at Photography Is Not A Crime have started interesting discussions over the conflicting desires of photographers and property owners.
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567 (1972)(emphasis added, edits in original).
This was not an isolated decision. See also Hudgens v. N.L.R.B., 424 U.S. 507 (1976) (Picketing not allowed on private property under First Amendment.); Cent. Hardware Co. v. N.L.R.B., 407 U.S. 539 (1972) (The First and Fourteenth Amendments are limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used only for private purposes. The fact that private parking lots are open to the public do not make them a public forum.); Wright v. Incline Village General Improvement Dist., 665 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (General public does not have a right to use private property for First Amendment expression, to do so can violate the First Amendment rights of the property owner.). Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., 425 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005) (Property does not become a public forum simply because a private owner generally opens his property to the public.); Strahan v. Frazier, 62 Fed. Appx. 359 (1st Cir. 2003) (The First Amendment does not prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on private property, including a private shopping mall).
There are some exceptions to the general rule, for example a state constitution or statute may grant individuals greater rights than is covered by the First Amendment. See PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 47 (1980) (First Amendment does not authorize free speech rights on private property over the property owner’s objection, but does not prevent a state from granting greater rights, such as the right to circulate petitions on property that is open to the general public).
I am firmly convinced that Massachusetts has lost its collective mind.
An 18-year-old high school student who is known for posting “rap” videos to YouTube and Facebook has been arrested based on the lyrics in his latest video. Cameron D’Ambrosio has been charged with “Communicating Terrorist Threats” (in reality, under the Bomb Threat statute) and faces up to 20 years in prison.
News articles are here, here, and here.
The problem I see is first, he did not say where the bomb was going to be. That’s one of the elements of the offense. The second is that the police keep talking about his video causing fear and people to be upset, but that’s not one of the elements unless there is a specific threat to hijack a plane, boat, or common carrier.
Since when did music (abet crappy music) become a criminal offense? Haven’t we gone through this already, when Florida police tried to shut down a 2 Live Crew album?
There’s a little problem here. It’s called the First Amendment. See Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir. 1992). You can’t arrest someone for tasteless lyrics that don’t make a very specific, clearly identifiable threat.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.