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

How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 994 posts

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#251

Post by cyanydeez »

p1necone wrote: post #174
twright wrote: post #122

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniabilit…

Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#252

Post by barfingclouds »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #202
sepositus wrote: post #143

I'm still scratching my head at how some people are surprised by this overreaction. It seems a lot of people think the current fawning over authoritarianism came out of a vacuum. All of the sudden a majority of America came out of stasis and flocked to the polls to elect a dictator.

Well, if you look at it from the perspective of faithless reporting like that from Fox News and Newsmax, the information pipeline has been selling a narrative that the left has been on an authoritarian tear since Obama. The newscasts are chilling: every one of them for more than two decades has taken a position that the left is an existential threat to the United States. With that kind of context, it's really no wond…

The left has been authoritarian. Rewind the clock to 2018, and speak your mind freely on a college campus and at some point you’ll say something that makes you lose your job. That’s one of many examples of the left being actually authoritarian.

I’m not saying two wrongs make a right and I’m not justifying the current administration. But if we look to how we got here, that’s a lot of why, if not mostly why.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#255

Post by echelon »

p1necone wrote: post #174
twright wrote: post #122

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniabilit…

The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech.

You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.

The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.

Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.

[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#256

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

p1necone wrote: post #174
twright wrote: post #122

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniabilit…

I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#257

Post by slibhb »

p1necone wrote: post #174
twright wrote: post #122

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniabilit…

> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.

The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.

And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#258

Post by tdb7893 »

King-Aaron wrote: post #163

It's all pretty cooked. It's honestly stunning to see how these cult-like followers have allowed themselves to be completely oblivious to what's going on. From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.

I think it's a mistake to think people are just oblivious. It's not a majority but there are actually a lot of people aware of these things and celebrating them.

One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution. You can see the retribution, often personal, against people conspiring against him in a lot of his speeches and policies (he's even blamed immigrants before for bringing drugs and "poisoning the blood of our country" and implied they are conspiring against the US) and there are people that care about that retribution more than rights or other ideals.

I could write pages more about how you can hear how the idea of victimization and retribution is part of his talks on tariffs, foreign policy, immigration, "DEI", law offices, the judicial system, etc but obviously it would be too long for an internet comment. Once I noticed it I started seeing it everywhere with him.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#259

Post by g-b-r »

m-hodges wrote: post #102
nsxwolf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can be VP and then succeed by the president stepping down.

The 12th Amendment disagrees: > But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Elected as speaker of the house, then, as has already been said

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#260

Post by refulgentis »

barfingclouds wrote: post #252
dclowd9901 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you look at it from the perspective of faithless reporting like that from Fox News and Newsmax, the information pipeline has been selling a narrative that the left has been on an authoritarian tear since Obama. The newscasts are chilling: every one of them for more than two decades has taken a position that the left is an existential threat to the United States. With that kind of context, it's really no wond…

The left has been authoritarian. Rewind the clock to 2018, and speak your mind freely on a college campus and at some point you’ll say something that makes you lose your job. That’s one of many examples of the left being actually authoritarian. I’m not saying two wrongs make a right and I’m not justifying the current administration. But if we look to how we got here, that’s a lot of why, if not mostly why.

I'm amenable to hearing out this argument, but it would be rude to let you slip by with "in 2018, if you spoke your mind, you'd get fired." You and I both know that wouldn't fly in middle school debate class, even, and I don't want to cheapen our relationship by nodding along to it.
Post reply on HN