Does Facebook hate cannabis?
APPARENTLY, YES. Instagram is pretty hard on marijuana, too. Twitter is better. Tumblr also seems good, and Friendster is “taking a break.”
Earlier this year, my law firm was treated to a primer in internet censorship when Facebook banned us from promoting our blog and its posts. (Our blog, cannalawblog.com, is pretty widely read.) Why does Facebook block content promoting Canna Law Blog? According to its advertising guidelines and some form emails we received, one “may not promote or facilitate the sale or consumption of illegal or recreational drugs, tobacco products, or drug or tobacco paraphernalia.”
Neither Canna Law Blog nor its Facebook page have ever promoted or facilitated the sale or consumption of anything, including drugs or tobacco. That’s not our bag. In fact, the person who runs our Facebook page studiously deletes and bans users who try to use it for selling anything, including weed. The goal of Canna Law Blog is to educate readers and stimulate discussion about weed, weed laws, weed business, and so on. That’s it.
Facebook’s blanket policy suppresses the exercise of political speech rights and that frustrates many people on a daily basis. Instagram is similar. In 2013, Instagram banned #weed from its site (along with #boobs and #JamesMotherF*ckingFranco). Instagram continues to shut down accounts that show cannabis images, whether for medicinal or recreational use—even in states like Oregon with legal marijuana. Instead, marijuana political speech (in 2015!) is curtailed by social media’s boorish restrictions.
How do they figure? Well, the difference between political and commercial speech is typically pretty stark. Our Constitution’s First Amendment provides the most protection to political speech, which includes advocacy for marijuana legalization and commentary on marijuana social issues. With commercial speech, on the other hand, the government can more easily restrict advertisement of a product or service.
In a famous 1979 case, the US Supreme Court set out a four-part test to determine whether government regulation of advertising speech is valid: (1) Does the advertisement involve lawful activity? (2) Does the government have a substantial interest? (3) Does the regulation advance a substantial government interest? (4) Is the regulation the least restrictive means of advancing the substantial government interest?
Of course, Facebook and Instagram are not the government. They are private, non-governmental entities. Our First Amendment does not bind them. Still, due to current federal marijuana laws, Facebook’s prohibition on advertisements for selling marijuana is understandable. The company wants to avoid the remote possibility of any US Department of Justice charges in aiding and abetting the sale of a federally illegal drug. However, Facebook should recognize the difference between talking about marijuana issues, and actually trying to sell weed.
Everyone (including the minority of Americans who oppose marijuana legalization) loses out when social media sites quash free speech and censor legitimate content. With the power wielded by social media, platforms like Facebook and Instagram are the new town square, after all. #SorryNotSorry
Send your cannabis legal questions to vince@harrismoure.com.
How can bongs be illegal? Tommy Chong went to prison because he refused to say that his company selling bongs was wrong. The would have let him off if he said what they wanted, but instead he told the truth.
Seriously, grass is now legal, but paraphernalia is not. Here’s another legal question for you. Medical so-called, “Marijuana” permit holders in Orygun are allowed to grow four plants per crop and allowed to possess a pound and a half of dried, cured, herb. However, four plants of Humboldt Seed Organization’s, Lemon Thai Kush, can yield three quarters of a pound of bud, leaving the patient with three pounds of medicine. Furthermore, they can grow five such crops per year, for a total bounty of fifteen pounds per year. Is this a conflict of law, and if so, which aspect takes precedent; the limit of one and a half pound, or twenty plants per year?
Read that four plants recreational, six plants medicinal.
Can I sue those contemptible Multnomah County bastard judges and Portland State University in Federal Court from Honolulu or San Francisco? Have you ever won a suit in court? How much of a retainer do you want? Can I sue you when you lose?
The authors of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, really fucked up by using both terms, “Marijuana” which is a misnomer; and Cannabis which has before now, not been a legal term. Until this recent legislation, Cannabis has not been regulated, and therefore was perfectly legal without restriction, and the laws against Marijuana summarily dismissible on the grounds that there’s no such thing as Marijuana.
http://www.canorml.org/Medical_Marijuana_Regulation_and_Safety_Act.pdf
To answer your question, though, Facebook is ignorant and your taunting them won’t persuade them to hire you. They don’t care if they discriminate on legitimate grounds, irrational haltered, political disagreement, or outright hysteria. Pot Lawyer, what the Hell’s that? Why don’t you just sue them like a real lawyer would do?