You are talking about prior case law, while I'm talking about likely future trajectory of case law. The constitution protects what the supreme court deems it to protect, within some reasonable interpretation of the text.
There is no text in the constitution protecting abortions either, yet we have the Roe v Wade result.
Here was the finding:
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right."
I'm sure any rational observer can infer that the result stretches the definition of the wording to reach that conclusion. I am not anti-choice, just pointing out how loose of an interpretation can be used to reach a result.
It's pretty clear to me that if we enter a world where 95% of communication runs through a handful of companies, that right to free speech is meaningless without protections also against sufficiently sized/impactful organizations. There's certainly a way to reach that conclusion using the current text.
A conclusion could be that the government is infringing on the rights to free speech by not adequately protecting the public from large private entities. That's a pretty easy to reason and grasp result.
Let's revisit this comment in a few years. Pretty confident it will play out this way, especially given the current makeup of the court.
There is no text in the constitution protecting either a right to abortion or any broader right to privacy. There is specific text in the constitution protecting speech and association; in fact, it's the first enumerated right. Abortion has a much higher hill to climb than free association.
There is no text in the constitution protecting abortions either, yet we have the Roe v Wade result.
Here was the finding: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right."
I'm sure any rational observer can infer that the result stretches the definition of the wording to reach that conclusion. I am not anti-choice, just pointing out how loose of an interpretation can be used to reach a result.
It's pretty clear to me that if we enter a world where 95% of communication runs through a handful of companies, that right to free speech is meaningless without protections also against sufficiently sized/impactful organizations. There's certainly a way to reach that conclusion using the current text.
A conclusion could be that the government is infringing on the rights to free speech by not adequately protecting the public from large private entities. That's a pretty easy to reason and grasp result.
Let's revisit this comment in a few years. Pretty confident it will play out this way, especially given the current makeup of the court.