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

341–350 of 994 posts

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

#341

Post by rtpg »

slibhb wrote: post #257
p1necone wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can support free speech in the abstract, end up defending certain people whose views you hate, and still come up with a good amount of respect. The ACLU is able to maintain respect despite helping some pretty terrible people in court.

There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course.

"Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.

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

#342

Post by ta8645 »

Conscat wrote: post #337
ta8645 wrote: post #275

It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration. "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences", "free speech does not apply to hate-speech", "we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation", It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.

> "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences" This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.

Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.

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

#343

Post by [deleted] »

RachelF wrote: post #215
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…

One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada. Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK. Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.

[deleted]

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

#344

Post by beeflet »

justanotheratom wrote: post #177

"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election" Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation? edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7

This is weird that you are citing an LLM

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

#345

Post by winter_blue »

outer_web wrote: post #152
winter_blue wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scotus would need to strike down the 22nd amendment. Even with as horribly morally bankrupt of a scotus as we have now, I don’t think they’d sink to the low of striking down the 22nd.

I don't believe scotus can invalidate an amendment. The best they can do is interpret it in a way that allows a third term.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment, that is true.

But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment.

For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine

With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling.

The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine.

Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.

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

#346

Post by dragonwriter »

rcpt wrote: post #335

> many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituent I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is

> I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is

They do and have been exploiting it for a while.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220...

“House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year’s midterms.

“A number of Democrats who ventured this month into GOP territory said they liked what they saw: anxious voters who are up in arms over both President Trump’s dismantling of the federal government and the reluctance of the majority Republicans to provide a check on executive power.

“Encouraged by their experiences, Democrats say they not only intend to return to those battleground districts, they’re also eyeing plans to broaden their range in the weeks and months to come. The Democrats’ campaign arms, in some cases, are helping to coordinate the effort.”

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

#347

Post by donatj »

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…

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Read that, please.

I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.

The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...

The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.

I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.

The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.

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

#348

Post by zmgsabst »

tdb7893 wrote: post #258
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 re…

Trump isn’t the source of that, but a manifestation of it.

People are tired of, eg, systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites (euphemized “DIE”) or courts which have outspoken activists refusing to enforce the law against career criminals.

They want it to stop — and since elites refused to onboard that correction, they rallied behind a strongman to punish them.

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

#349

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #341
slibhb wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can support free speech in the abstract, end up defending certain people whose views you hate, and still come up with a good amount of respect. The ACLU is able to maintain respect despite helping some pretty terrible people in court. There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst p…

[deleted]

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

#350

Post by russdill »

nsxwolf wrote: post #45
galacticaactual wrote: post #33

[flagged]

Disinformation is not free speech.

Both calling something disinformation and disinformation itself are clearly protected free speech. Especially if the "disinformation" is political in nature.
Post reply on HN