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

Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#31

Post by mulmen »

zfg wrote: post #28
cosmotic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does. If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

> It is protection by the state.

It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#32

Post by hunter2_ »

mulmen wrote: post #25
thayne wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.

> The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it…

[flagged]

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#34

Post by somenameforme »

lxgr wrote: post #29
thayne wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.

That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the Fir…

This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1]

A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point:

---

The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

---

That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#35

Post by neilv »

> “Frank Miller Jr. made threats against an MSG executive on social media and produced and sold merchandise that was offensive in nature,” Mikyl Cordova, executive vice president of communications and marketing for the company, said in an emailed statement.

If he made threats, what were the threats?

If he didn't make threats, does this written statement, from a communications executive, to a journalist, intended for news publication, constitute libel?

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#37

Post by zfg »

mulmen wrote: post #31
zfg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does. If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

> It is protection by the state. It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent . They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#38

Post by brookst »

thayne wrote: post #17
mingus88 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.

It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.

Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#39

Post by bluefirebrand »

ysofunny wrote: post #20
mingus88 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a 1st amendment issue. This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life. Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp. We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk…

it's a 1st ammendment issue in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart because citizen-president Trump is a power bully but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the n…

> as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

Really we're going backwards here

Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be

It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#40

Post by [deleted] »

zfg wrote: post #37
mulmen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is protection by the state. It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent . They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN