The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down Maryland's law that prohibited internet advertisers from disclosing the costs of the state's internet advertising tax. This decision was based on First Amendment rights. The court drew historical parallels to the Stamp Act of 1765, emphasizing that taxation without transparency can hinder free speech, as it did during the American Revolution. The ruling reflects the enduring principle that the power to tax can threaten individual freedoms and illustrates the historical context of resisting oppressive taxation.
In 1765, the British Parliament imposed a novel tax on the fledgling colonies in North America. The Stamp Act was reviled because it taxed most everything written on paper, from playing cards to newspapers.
Judge Richardson's opinion underscores that the Maryland law barring internet advertisers from disclosing costs violates the First Amendment, drawing parallels to historical taxation and freedom of speech.
The ongoing issues surrounding taxation and free speech echo the sentiments of historical protests such as those against the Stamp Act, showcasing a recurring theme of resistance against oppressive taxation.
The judgement not only aligns with First Amendment rights but also resonates with historical principles that have driven the evolution of American law and civil liberties.
Collection
[
|
...
]