Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates • Hacker News Board

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#261

Post by jki275 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 12:14 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #260

jki275 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Free speech is a natural right enshrined in our Constitution, and it’s not “obviously broken”. It’s a fundamental principle of our country. Journalist must be free to report. Now, they could certainly be more responsible, as in this case - but it’s not the governments prerogative to make them so.

Sounds to me like it's not only broken but it should be moved from the constitution to the bible if it's that religious for you.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Those are fundamental values of the American culture from its beginning.

That's not "broken" just because you don't like it. We chose a different path from the broken European model.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#262

Post by zaarn » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #261

zaarn wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like it's not only broken but it should be moved from the constitution to the bible if it's that religious for you.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Those are fundamental values of the American culture from its beginning. That's not "broken" just because you don't like it. We chose a different path from the broken European model.

Well good luck with your broken path, we tried them all in Europe. Don't forget we have literally two thousand years of experience.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#263

Post by jki275 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #262

jki275 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Those are fundamental values of the American culture from its beginning. That's not "broken" just because you don't like it. We chose a different path from the broken European model.

Well good luck with your broken path, we tried them all in Europe. Don't forget we have literally two thousand years of experience.

Yeah, feudalism is definitely a better path. lol.

You are aware that our founding fathers had the benefit of all that thousands of years of experience to inform how they created our form of government, right?

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#264

Post by andrewla » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #203

andrewla wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Validity" or "advisability"? I think the amendment seems fairly clear to me. I, too, disagree that it should be enshrined in the constitution, or even that it should exist as a right in such an unrestricted form. But there's no doubt that it's in there, and we already have a process for changing the constitution. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would push to invalidate all laws that limit the ownership and carr…

I disagree that the amendment is clear. It is so obliquely written that it took the Supreme Court over 200 years to conclude that it, in fact, conveys an individual constitutional right to own a firearm.

The plain language is clear. The courts have always taken to heart that part of the role of government is to "promote the general Welfare". As a result, they respect that there is a balance between the right enshrined in the second amendment and the general welfare clause, which can have a common sense interpretation to protect the people of the United States from unnecessary harm.

This is reasonable as a principle of justice, but it means that we are prevented from achieving consensus on the bounds of Congress's and the several state's power to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms unless we amend the constitution to make those boundaries clear. My approach above is a bit scorched earth, but I think there's a consensus to be found between the anti-gun people and the reasonable-gun-control people that might exclude the gun rights absolutists, but result in some sensible middle ground.