The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at.
While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context. That comment very much relates to 1A, whether it uses a particular phrase or not, because it exists in this context of discussion about a bill talking about government regulation, which very much ties into 1A.
Let me circle back. My experience here on HN after trying to have substantive 1A discussions is, frankly, disappointing. Perhaps I thought that people smart enough to program computers would be somewhat good at unpacking logical arguments based on a complex legal history. I've found mixed evidence for this. Instead, I often see:
* Many people are simply unskilled communicators.
* Many people are unnecessarily pedantic -- meaning they make a tiny irrelevant point but miss the huge issues in play and don't connect with others as people
* Many people lack the tools or willingness to clarify, learn, and understand.
* In terms of subject matter, the basics of 1A are not well understood. Instead, dogmatic assertions tend to be used.
* FUD and slippery slope arguments are prevalent.
* Balanced discussions of pros and cons are few and far between.
* Even if the basics of 1A are understood, the authors often do not do a good job of formulating their questions in a way that signals their understanding and clarifies their question.
These are unfortunate patterns I've seen. This is why I shared some basic information to ground the conversation.
You may call me a critic, skeptic, or cynic. However, I think I'm being fairly accurate as to the quality of intellectual discussion around 1A on Hacker News.
So much of the 'legal' conversation I see here on HN would be laughed out of even an undergraduate law class. We can and should do better. It is not for lack of intellectual reasoning ability. Other things seem to be getting in the way: dogma, fixation on narrow things to the detriment of the broader context, ego, unexamined rigid beliefs, a lack of historical awareness, insular worldview, etc.