It would likely violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), holding that a state cannot compel an individual to display the state motto on his vehicle's license plate.
Ok thanks for explaining. I guess in this case they wouldn't compel them to add anything they would prevent them from removing a statement. That is still another subtlety.
A canary involves someone removing or withdrawing a statement they made previously, it is that action that the gag order would prohibit.
Now personally I hope Apple succeeds and other companies do the same.
Apple wouldn't remove or withdraw the canary, and doesn't need to.
Simply, when they are making the next PR statement, then that next time they won't include a specific claim 'No warrants yet', and leave people to interpret as they want.
If the report is written from scratch every time, there's no need to remove the canary statement. You just don't include it in the next copy of the report.
The old statement is not changed or withdrawn, the new report just doesn't include the text.
It would likely violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), holding that a state cannot compel an individual to display the state motto on his vehicle's license plate.
reply