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

441–450 of 994 posts

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

#441

Post by relatedtitle »

milesrout wrote: post #405
sapphicsnail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.

Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.

But the Bible's ok...

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

#442

Post by OccamsMirror »

move-on-by wrote: post #373

If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration. As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up. I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.

Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet.

Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.

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

#443

Post by cowhow »

facile3232 wrote: post #376

I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it. As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.

Just like oxygen, free speech is one of those things that you don't miss until you lose it. You use it everyday without even realizing it.

In a country without free speech protections, expressing an unpopular opinion about a political party or hot topic can get you thrown in prison. Look at the Syrian Assad regime or the current Chinese administration. People are arrested for merely being negative in social media posts. I can totally see the US going in that direction.

You can be nonchalant about this if you want, be there are very good reasons people are getting up in arms about this erosion of our protections.

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

#444

Post by nine_k »

kopirgan wrote: post #410
sapphicsnail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.

Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!

Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.

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

#445

Post by dashundchen »

mychael wrote: post #288
starchild3001 wrote: post #82

I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment. And the same principles made it a world leader. Now that enlightenment values are actively being dismantled what next can we expect?

[flagged]

How can one be this delusional? I have the feeling you don't understand what a libertarian is or what the enlightenment was about

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

#446

Post by magicalist »

Jensson wrote: post #332
dclowd9901 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but it's what their news outlets tell them is going on. They fully believed Kamala was a threat to their gun ownership, and her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.

> her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego. Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to, so if you look at leaders of countries most women are right wing. So if anything it is the left that has an issue with female leaders, not the right.

> Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to

If we define "leader" as executive or legislative positions at the federal or state level, definitely not true in the US, by a pretty large margin.

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

#447

Post by wwweston »

russdill wrote: post #350
nsxwolf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exercising editorial control over publications and an information networks that you own or manage is also free speech.

As is engaging in discussion about it with people who own or manage them.

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

#448

Post by kopirgan »

Aurornis wrote: post #434
kopirgan wrote: post #399

Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught. If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment. If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity…

> Not really clear what this article is about. The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda. > If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredd…

I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be.

It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.

By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.

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

#449

Post by tw04 »

kopirgan wrote: post #410
sapphicsnail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.

Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!

The UK and Germany don’t and never have had the 1st amendment.

As for “the other way around” - what I saw the right wing complaining about was “being canceled”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences for your actions. A private business is well within their rights to fire you if you’re posting racist or homophonic slurs online.

The only thing the first amendment provides is freedom from the government impeding your speech. Doing things like, you know, threatening jail time for journalists who say things they don’t like. Or, in a functioning US government, pulling funding from colleges because they’ve got students protesting over the current situation in the Middle East.

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

#450

Post by Aurornis »

kopirgan wrote: post #429
Boltgolt wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist

That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason. As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.

Your best argument is that journalists should look the other way when serious problems land in their lap?

> As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.

This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t.

It’s mind-bending that someone could be so bought into a bad situation that they try to shift blame to outside parties like this.

Post reply on HN