Why we are suing the Administration • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#291

Post by nathanlied » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

count wrote: post #282

badRNG wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Yes I am. My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is re…

They're not banning the software. They're banning doing business with ByteDance. If no money or contract is executed, you aren't covered. It's ByteDance that chooses to enforce a ToS and have a contract - they could put the code and app up for download with no money changing hands, and it'd be fine. This is importantly different. Not saying it's right or wrong, just specifically different.

Indeed. I don't see why people are mischaracterising this ban; it isn't banning software, it's an extension of the concept of a 'commercial embargo' - except now it applies to a company instead of a country.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#292

Post by lmkg » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

hatchnyc wrote: post #279

phkahler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

I have come to disagree with the sentiment. The constitution prevents congress from restricting free speech because it is a document written about what congress can and cannot do, not because the authors wanted to argue that restricting freedom of speech was a job that should be left to individuals and businesses. It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context w…

There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech.

I'm not generally in favor of taking corporate personhood to logical extremes, but I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. Being able to promote some speech over others is part of that.

The First Amendment applies to the government because the government is a privileged party. Its role in society is dislike that of any private citizen or enterprise, and the restrictions we place on it reflect that uniqueness. It only makes sense to extend the First Amendment to other parties that have a unique role.

Which we do, e.g. Common Carrier restrictions on the movement of goods, and a variety of special requirements on telecommunications companies. If we want to say that social media platforms have become a core aspect of modern democracy and need to be regulated as such, there's an argument to be made. But applying it to private businesses in general is overreach in my opinion.

There's another line of reasoning that "First Amendment" is a stand-in for the societal value of freedom of speech. While it doesn't legally apply, we invoke it to mean that freedom of speech is the first-est of amendments, i.e. is the freedom that we rank more highly than any others. This still gets into the same paradox though. A company shouldn't be forced to equally support all viewpoints because then it's not a freedom, but we can certainly express dissatisfaction that a private party is acting in a way counter to the values of our society.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#293

Post by mas3god » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

seamyb88 wrote: post #152

Your police shoot unarmed black people and your president defends them. Free world my ass.

Your country throws millions into forced labor camps and forces them to disown their culture

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#294

Post by umvi » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #230

phkahler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#295

Post by mas3god » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

badRNG wrote: post #28

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…

> unjustified escalation Huh

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#296

Post by bronco21016 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #202

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

It’s really more nuanced than that though isn’t it?

The issue isn’t so much that TikTok is censoring content. It’s that they’re censoring content at the request of a foreign government.

I’m not a legal scholar by any means so I cannot really comment about the application of the constitution or other applicable law. However, it feels like it’s probably wrong to let another country censor the speech of US citizens, in the US.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#297

Post by TheCoelacanth » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #245

fvv wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom can only start with free speech and can only start dying with censorship, you tell me now .. puns are fun but lead nowhere if you want to talk seriously

So which flavor of free speech[0] is good enough for you? Which countries pass the threshold? I know that the free speech we have in Germany is probably not good enough for most US people that are keen on free speech, but it's good enough for me (mostly). When someone calls on the "free world", it has mostly become a US patriotism dog whistle to me without any deeper meaning. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo…

Banning calls for the extermination of entire races is hardly the same as banning the discussion of Tibetan independence.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#298

Post by TempLogsForOne » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #202

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

That is not technically accurate even though that fallacy/lie has been spread spread for a while now. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land … translation, it applies to everyone downstream from that, including politicians and the government of increasingly concentration of psychopaths (and no, that does not only apply to the current administration).

In order to understand this concept that is either intentionally or stupidly being manipulated, one has to understand that the Constitution created the government and, relevant to this point, protects preexisting, God given rights, from violation by that government; the Bill of Rights as most would know them as. They are actually not a Bill of Rights as people today would understand from the term, but rather they are articles of the Constitution that protect those rights, essentially laws that the government of psychopaths cannot violate to infringe on those God given, preceding rights.

So to your point, yes, the government may not infringe on the God given rights, but that also applies to all others whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the supremacy of the Constitution, aka, all people who are not subject to the primary jurisdiction of a foreign nation, aka guests.

You cannot pick and choose which of the articles of the Constitution apply to the government and now; or would you propose that slavery by the government is not permitted, but it is A OK for everyone else to engage in slavery? I understand the compulsion to evade logical consistency to rationalize how one article of the Constitution does apply and another does not, but that is not accurate and is inherently fallacious, irrational, and inherent uncivilized, brutish, and animalistic.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#299

Post by zadkey » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

"By banning TikTok with no notice or opportunity to be heard (whether before or after the fact), the executive order violates the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment."

The 5th amendment rights that they are asserting apply to people.

This brings us back to the question of "Are corporations people?"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#300

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

throwaway122378 wrote: post #220

phkahler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this

Private organizations are allowed to decide how their property is used, including the type of speech it is used to facilitate. This is inherent to the concept of private property. I don't know why you think these companies are public forums. If there is a public forum in this space, it is the internet itself.

People who dislike the limits of these platforms have a variety of other venues on the internet to choose from, but what they are not at all entitled to is the automatic amplification of their voice by these large but private platforms.