We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them • Hacker News Board

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#181

Post by mmmBacon » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #173

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

I hear what you're saying. And I think there's plenty of room on this planet for many nations with different lines drawn in the sand on free speech. On one hand, I think there are many nations that are subjectively better places to live than the U.S., whose citizens have ceded more of their freedom of speech for scores of years and it's worked out pretty well so far. On the other hand, I think the manifestation of a…

You’re right to point out that many nations have better standards of living than the US. But I do think that standard of living has been mostly due to the relatively peaceful period of human history that we find ourselves in. It really wasn’t that long ago when most of Europe lived under some form of totalitarianism. Much of European history is filled with persecution of people for their beliefs, religion, etc... And so I think your statement shows how much you are taking your freedom for granted.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#182

Post by k_sh » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #170

softwaredoug wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is political speech a different category than other forms of speech? Think of the plausible scenario of a certain Presidents FEC deciding friendly speech isn’t “political” (it’s “patriotic”!) But critical speech is clearly political and should be regulated.

Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech? Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech? Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech? Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech? I'm going to claim that it's because these…

> Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech?

The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. This works in a similar manner to bomb-making plans being legal to disseminate, but making a bomb being very illegal.

> Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech?

This is solicitation to commit a crime, which is a specific exception to the 1A.

> Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech?

This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A.

> Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech?

Pointing a gun isn't speech, it's coercion.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#183

Post by k_sh » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

esturk wrote: post #150

softwaredoug wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is political speech a different category than other forms of speech? Think of the plausible scenario of a certain Presidents FEC deciding friendly speech isn’t “political” (it’s “patriotic”!) But critical speech is clearly political and should be regulated.

Thanks. Your above says advertisement, you said speech. Thats a big difference. Advertisement can be regulated which is the focus of this thread. No one is saying to regulate some speech in a rally but is said speech is reshape as some advertisment then they should be regulated.

For the purposes of American law, "speech" is defined very broadly. It can apply to burning an American flag[0], plans for 3-D printed guns[1], and even bombmaking instructions[2].

Our Supreme Court has decided that corporations spending money[3], even in politics[4], is speech as well.

The O'Brien test[5] is generally used to tell whether a law encroaches on 1A rights.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [1]: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/07/10/doj-second-amendment... [2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/archive/abi.htm [3]: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... [4]: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v... [5]: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obrient...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#184

Post by antidesitter » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

hadrien01 wrote: post #67

bluecalm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they pay for their own website? What about a website about their ideas? What about linking to that website? Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian. It's sure great for established players though as they are already known and get a lot of air time anyway while the competition can't even pay to try to convince others to their ideas.

They can have their own website, but only promoted through organic means. > Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian Europe, with its vastly different past, has a very different view on free speech compared to the US. We don't allow unlimited free speech, but we don't view that as censorship. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. Hate speech is condemned through most of Europe (one of our far-right politicians in Fra…

Do you view this as censorship?

https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-d...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#185

Post by skookumchuck » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:17 AM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.

Holocaust denying is a crime in many countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#186

Post by mmmBacon » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:19 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #165

manigandham wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Advertising is not bribery and the European region is nowhere near the freedom of speech principles of the US. It may feel the same, either because you have never said anything or have never been heard by anyone who cares, but there are countless examples of prosecution that would be summarily dismissed here in the States. Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes c…

> Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. This line of reasoning never made sense to me. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural issue. A modern society cannot credibly claim to be free on legal grounds alone. Yeah, the government won't put me in prison or fine me, but if I get fired for being a staunch liberal (or conservative) then I'm not really free, am I? This doesn't just apply t…

The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have freedom of association as long as they don’t violate a protected class ( race, religion, sex, age, national origin, etc...). Since you the government can’t force a company to associate with someone they disagree with, you can be fired for things you say.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#187

Post by Waterluvian » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:26 AM UTC

mmmBacon wrote: post #181

Waterluvian wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you're saying. And I think there's plenty of room on this planet for many nations with different lines drawn in the sand on free speech. On one hand, I think there are many nations that are subjectively better places to live than the U.S., whose citizens have ceded more of their freedom of speech for scores of years and it's worked out pretty well so far. On the other hand, I think the manifestation of a…

You’re right to point out that many nations have better standards of living than the US. But I do think that standard of living has been mostly due to the relatively peaceful period of human history that we find ourselves in. It really wasn’t that long ago when most of Europe lived under some form of totalitarianism. Much of European history is filled with persecution of people for their beliefs, religion, etc... And…

Maybe I am taking it for granted. I wish I knew the trick to be sure I wasn't but I think it's just kind of the condition of growing up in health and prosperity with parents who grew up in the same and grandparents who were a bit too young for the war. Canadian history has been fairly peaceful.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#188

Post by skookumchuck » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:29 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #107

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

I too love idealism, but I have to wonder just how broken things have to get before people begin to accept that a thing that sounds good in theory just doesn't work right in the real world? In theory, unregulated free markets are always self-correcting. In theory, socialism works great. In theory, uninhibited free speech is one of the pillars of a free society. So if we start seeing torrential downpour of misleading…

> a huge rise in hate speech

Interestingly, this has come after a huge rise in PC speech codes. There's been a grand experiment in trying to regulate peoples' thoughts by regulating speech, it appears to have the opposite effect.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#189

Post by chrismanfrank » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:31 AM UTC

wyattpeak wrote: post #115

chrismanfrank wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment. The question then is...should YOU be the one to decide what is "better"? Who should be given that kind of power? In an ideal world, a benevolent philosopher king would have that power. In the real world, maybe it's best no one has it. Maybe it's better to cast the ring into the fire.

This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial? Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not t…

Well now you've raised a very deep point. We need some laws and regulation, but not too much. How do we decide? We have a Constitution and a political system, including judiciary where we can all fight it out.

Conservatives are more on the side of limited government power. Progressives think the government should do more. And on and on it goes...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#190

Post by nradov » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:32 AM UTC

mmmBacon wrote: post #181

Waterluvian wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you're saying. And I think there's plenty of room on this planet for many nations with different lines drawn in the sand on free speech. On one hand, I think there are many nations that are subjectively better places to live than the U.S., whose citizens have ceded more of their freedom of speech for scores of years and it's worked out pretty well so far. On the other hand, I think the manifestation of a…

You’re right to point out that many nations have better standards of living than the US. But I do think that standard of living has been mostly due to the relatively peaceful period of human history that we find ourselves in. It really wasn’t that long ago when most of Europe lived under some form of totalitarianism. Much of European history is filled with persecution of people for their beliefs, religion, etc... And…

Wait a few decades. The Europeans will eventually be at each other's throats again. Historically speaking, they are on average more violent and less tolerant than Americans.