zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
In a system of free speech, the government may also speak.

I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking.

So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish.

If the FBI wishes to apply the force of law, that is when they would need to show evidence, get a warrant, etc. But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful.

>>snowwr+I51
You have a fundamental lack of understanding about coercion, you don't have to make a direct threat of physical force to stop free speech and be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

>>partia+vw1
Coercive speech is a point of concern, but that does not mean that all speech by people at the FBI is coercive.