Why we are suing the Administration • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#341

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #268

dreamcompiler wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has been hashed out many times. Government cannot be allowed to use private companies as a shield. For instance (this has been tried in the US/canada/uk etc) can a city violate the rights of citizens if it hires a "private" company to conduct policing? Can a city ban certain people from walking the streets if it puts those streets in the hands of a "private" holding company? So what if the government partners wi…

In such cases the private entities are acting as agents of the government and in that capacity constitutional restrictions would apply to them.

There is over 2 centuries of legal jurisprudence on that question. It's not a novel issue.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#342

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #195

ThomPete wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about fake news it's about data access.

The data is pretty clear in a lot of cases on contentious issues. It's the interpretation that is being driven/manipulated and weaponized for some agenda. E.g. people have had all the data for car accidents for decades, and yet we don't have a large, concerted movement to ban or "reinvent" cars/roads/driving/driver's licenses even though it could save tens of thousands of lives. Likewise, we've had police and crime s…

thats not the concern of the US government in the case of tiktok though

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#343

Post by RandoHolmes » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #332

brandonmenc wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not to take away the rights of their owners Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations. The individual owners can keep their individual rights.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be bot…

It would be no more impossible than having a non-profit, it would just require a new legal status.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#344

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

Imnimo wrote: post #334

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Putting aside whether or not this is nonsense to begin with, it certainly doesn't apply to China, which is a government. A law requiring companies serving the US market to not comply with censorship by China is restricting what China can…

What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? If the CEO of TikTok says he doesn't want "free Tibet" on his platform because he wants to be on good terms with China, not because China specifically told him to censor it, is that his freedom?

> What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition?

The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#345

Post by joubert » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

stOneskull wrote: post #311

joubert wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in absolute numbers. Better to look at rate, because it shows your risk of being shot and killed, depending on ethnicity - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings... Black: 32 per million Hispanic: 24 per million White: 13 per million That is, if you're Black, your chances of being shot and killed by the police is 2.5 times higher than if you were white.

you make it sound like the police are a murder cult. they shoot because of a crime incident.

> they shoot because of a crime incident.

Even if all fatal police shootings were directly related to a crime committed by the person who is killed (they're not), we have to ask ourselves whether such shootings (or killing by other means, e.g. chokehold) are an appropriate technique for law enforcement.

Which crimes or actions warrant shooting or killing someone, in your opinion?

When we look at data that show killings by law enforcement officers by country, we learn that in the US people are fatally shot at 3.5 times the rate than they are in Canada and 9 times the rate as in France. You are more likely to be killed by the police in America than you are in Colombia, Egypt, Pakistan[1].

> you make it sound like the police are a murder cult. I am not saying the police are a murder cult; I'm saying that they are here to protect us and that when innocent people are fearful of those meant to protect us, something's wrong.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#346

Post by sdoering » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

dexen wrote: post #317

lmkg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ame…

>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. This is not quite right, legally speaking. Currently Youtube and other platforms enjoy the protection of Communication Decency Act Section 230 [1]. In particular, the passage "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher o…

I am not firm with US law, and there is something I just do not understand - but would like to.

If YT is just some form of medium, not the "speaker"/provider and by that not allowed to remove content under its own freedom of speech, why is it then allowed (even forced) to block my content under copyright laws if it infringes someone's copyright.

Why not just route the DMCA request to me and I would need to react. Isn't YT treated as provider/publisher, when forced to react to DMCA requests on my behalf, if I infringe on some copyright?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#347

Post by RandoHolmes » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

sct202 wrote: post #231

ISL wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where you can speak your mind without consequence from the government.

Freedom of speech is not the same in the rest of the world outside of America. Lots of European countries have hate speech laws in place where you can be convicted of crimes for speaking your mind if it's hateful. The EU has been pressuring large tech companies into self complying https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-l... But just the other day, there was a huge post with lots of uproar about ho…

Reminds me of the guy who taught his girlfriends dog to raise it's paw when it saw hitler talking or when it heard the phrase "heil hitler". He did it as a joke and put the video on youtube and ended up going to jail over it.

Which I very strongly disagree with. It was perhaps in poor taste, but hurt no one.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#348

Post by chrischattin » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:56 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…

I strongly disagree. Free speech is a cultural ethic. In an enlightened liberal society, we have a shared value that self-expression is a fundamental human right. And, it is wrong to take away someone's human rights. The first amendment exists to ensure the government never violates that human right. But, companies and individuals have a cultural/moral obligation to protect/not violate that right as well, imo.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#349

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

president wrote: post #339

sudosysgen wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.

Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.

You can't prove a negative.

If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#350

Post by Heyso » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

Not sure this has anything to do with tiktok, but just wanted to say that :

Every compagny that is not paying taxes, is stealing money from all peoples in the country. They use loopholes in the law to make in legal. But that should not be acceptable. It pain me to live in a world where most peoples doesn't care to be robbed constantly.