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

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

eshoo.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 602 posts

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#501

Post by TrispusAttucks »

offby37years wrote: post #193
tarboreus wrote: post #16

Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?

If you're convinced fascism has arrived in America, you'll excuse any means necessary to topple the dictator and to prevent a reoccurrence. The issue is in doing so, they've become the tyrannical force they propose to oppose. “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes…

I like your quote. It inspired me to share another.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#502

Post by thaumasiotes »

garg wrote: post #436
PixyMisa wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example. Edit: People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Fire…

Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct:

> The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

> This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.

> Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.

This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#503

Post by InfiniteBeing »

Meanwhile the major Democrat leaning/voting news outlets peddled russian collusion conspiracy nonsense for years and then stoked the flames of racial and anti-police violence last year. And I see we have people here clinging to misinformation and melodramatic interpretations by the major liberal news outlets on events of january 6th, and these people don't know that they are living in unreality themselves and yet want to censor their political opponents under the guises of "misinformation" and "inciting."

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#504

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #493
Retric wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t suggest government regulation of speech. Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.

Apologies, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted the following: dnissley: "Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking." Retric: "Do you have any other options?"

Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#505

Post by arrosenberg »

jolux wrote: post #273
arrosenberg wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to disagree with the notion that this letter is chilling on free speech. There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this i…

>There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I mostly agree on the merits, but arguing this point is difficult because regardless of what the 1A was designed to do, at this point its legal interpretation has become broad enough tha…

I agree it's tough to imagine this government having the legitimacy to deal with the crisis, if only because so many of them were complicit in creating it. The founders were pretty well-read - they were equally weary of a Caesar or Marius as they were a Charles I. New communication mediums always seem to bring an uncomfortable "breaking in" period along with them.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#506

Post by FireBeyond »

nyczomg wrote: post #495
FireBeyond wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, comprehension. > evidence that could prove someone caused his death > have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries Neither of these things say "he did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the riots". > "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that…

You literally commented that there is video of the officer being struck by a fire extinguisher. “The statement that it had not been determined that blunt force trauma specifically caused Officer Sicknick's death doesn't make the attack BS - there's video footage of him being hit with one.” Does the word “one” not refer to a fire extinguisher? Did I fail to comprehend your claim? Assuming the video you refer to does s…

https://nypost.com/2021/01/11/video-shows-capitol-rioter-hit...

Right there. With a nice big red circle around him.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#507

Post by a1369209993 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #337
r00fus wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm - 4 years of an administration doing exactly what you're describing (silencing opposition viewpoints) and now it's all unity and kumbayah? Your post is quite ironic.

Actually, 12 years

More like sixty-some; these tactics date at least back to McCarthy and the Unamerican Activities commitee.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#508

Post by SMAAART »

Disinformation is bad, but this is of concern to me, the 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment; there si a good body of Laws that posed due limits to the 1st Amendment without compromising its spirit.

We should look at acts like this "letters" with more concern than disinformation itself.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#509

Post by reilly3000 »

mikece wrote: post #283
hpcjoe wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works. Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for…

The question today is "how many" but the question tomorrow will be "what are their names?"

I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Asking a media outlet the size of their audience is a common figure, something they include in every ad sales presentation. Its relevant to understand the reach of these messages, especially when they have direct ties to foreign adversaries such as in the case of OANN: https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channe... This is not a censorship dragnet, its a wide-ranging set of inquiries to a diverse set of media (keep scrolling if you just saw the AT&T letter) in response to an attempted insurrection.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#510

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #504
rayiner wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted the following: dnissley: "Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking." Retric: "Do you have any other options?"

Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.

The medical monopoly is more expansive than that. It regulates not just the use of the terms but the practice of medicine itself. And those rules are backed by the force of the government. If that’s what you’re suggesting for journalism, it’s even worse. It ultimately has the backing of government, but without the political accountability.
Post reply on HN