Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#61

Post by dang »

grecy wrote: post #11
lawlessquestion wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer…

[flagged]

Please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It leads to flamewars. We don't want those here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#62

Post by joshuamorton »

whateveracct wrote: post #60
joshuamorton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear…

Right but my point was just that the Internet clearly falls under the 1st amendment expression and is therefore protected from government influence in similar ways.

I'd agree with what you just said, but your original post can be construed as (and many claim) that if Facebook is a monopoly, the first amendment protects your ability to post on Facebook, since it's a public square. But that doesn't follow.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#63

Post by Floegipoky »

joshuamorton wrote: post #58
whateveracct wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear…

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#64

Post by Invictus0 »

mistermann wrote: post #53
Invictus0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can communicate by typing in yourprotestwebsite.com and interacting there. Having the right to assemble doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for you: and not to mention, having the internet at your disposal makes organizing a protest infinitely easier than at the time of the nation's founding.

Whether the government has to do something vs should do something seems similar to the question of whether Western democracies are truly democratic, or theatric.

You think the government should demand private companies facilitate public protests?

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#65

Post by joshuamorton »

Floegipoky wrote: post #63
joshuamorton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear…

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.

I'm well aware. Of what the press is, as defined by the Constitution.

And my point is that such an argument is wrong, and furthermore dangerous. If you allow the government to control what Facebook can or cannot publish, well you're now saying the government can control the press.

If it's a monopoly, deal with the monopoly. Being a monopoly doesn't revoke constitutional rights.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#66

Post by harimau777 »

SllX wrote: post #52
harimau777 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An essential part of the "town square" is that it is that it is a central place where people can be heard. The fact that zillions of social networks exist is irrelevant since only a few of them have the public scope and size such that they act as a modern town square. The same is true of physical spaces. The right to peaceable assembly doesn't the same as it has in the past because in the past the center of society w…

To be frank I think the relevancy of those few social networks that are considered “public squares” is massively overblown. They can register on a political radar, but only on a very crowded radar screen. Tumblr isn’t dead yet, and is still a favored hangout for the fringe parts of society. Twitter isn’t dead, and it is the favored hangout of journalists and celebrities and their hangerons. Facebook and Reddit are ap…

I think that you are most likely correct that there are a large number of "public squares" and that people sometimes over state the importance of a given one. However, I still think it's likely that among those public squares, certain ones are more important than others. If I had to guess I would say that Hollywood, network news, and social media are the biggest players.

I suppose someone could probably do a study to try to determine which platforms are most important. For example, they could track where political slogans that eventually go mainstream originated.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#67

Post by SllX »

harimau777 wrote: post #66
SllX wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be frank I think the relevancy of those few social networks that are considered “public squares” is massively overblown. They can register on a political radar, but only on a very crowded radar screen. Tumblr isn’t dead yet, and is still a favored hangout for the fringe parts of society. Twitter isn’t dead, and it is the favored hangout of journalists and celebrities and their hangerons. Facebook and Reddit are ap…

I think that you are most likely correct that there are a large number of "public squares" and that people sometimes over state the importance of a given one. However, I still think it's likely that among those public squares, certain ones are more important than others. If I had to guess I would say that Hollywood, network news, and social media are the biggest players. I suppose someone could probably do a study to…

Okay, pick some variables. What do you want to measure to determine the value or importance of differing “public squares” and what criteria would you like to use to define what is and isn’t a “public square”?

Personally while I don’t think Facebook itself is all that important as a “public square”, I think they actually have figured this one out and a long time ago at that.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#68

Post by mistermann »

Invictus0 wrote: post #64
mistermann wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the government has to do something vs should do something seems similar to the question of whether Western democracies are truly democratic, or theatric.

You think the government should demand private companies facilitate public protests?

That is an impressively vague but rhetorically far more persuasive way to ask the actual, more specific question: whether the major social media companies should possibly be compelled to facilitate widespread free speech, especially if that is the democratic will of the people.

I would say yes, but before we do anything, I would like a very serious and in-depth public conversation to take place, followed by some non-deceptive public polling. Would you be opposed to such a process?

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#69

Post by notatoad »

whateveracct wrote: post #50
notatoad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Town square" has never given you a global audience. Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square, they're a global square giving normal people access to an audience they never would have previously had access to. I get that you have opinions about this, but pretending that the right to have your tweets promoted to an audience of millions and the right to free assembly are in any way the s…

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

The right to not publish anything is just as important a part of the freedom of the press as the right to publish something. If the leader of the Proud Boys writes a white supremacist manifesto and the Washington Post declines to publish it, that's the freedom of the press in action. If the government were to step in and say "no, you have to publish this", that would be a massive violation of the freedom of the press.

When we apply the exact same scenario to reddit or youtube, everybody is up in arms about how they have a duty to free speech to publish every piece of racist garbage that gets posted.

Post reply on HN