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

Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 401 posts

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#381

Post by seanmcdirmid »

coliveira wrote: post #379
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as Trump can’t do much without congress, I don’t get your point. His executive orders are limited m, and the judiciary is the branch that tells him that, the legislative branch has more power but doesn’t get to tell trump what his executive orders can do like the judicial system.

The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There should be legislation to determine this.

That isn't how our democracy works. Congress doesn't get to decide who gets to be president, the voters do. We don't have a prime minister.

An executive order can literally declare anything it wants. If it goes against the law, that is where the courts come in. Congress can't tell the president what he can and cannot write, if the president writes an order that goes against the law, that is where the courts come in (and that is what is happening).

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#382

Post by mav3rick »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #373
mav3rick wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is for China's people to decide not you.

Why should it be only for China's people to decide? CCP's actions have global effects, China's people are not the only ones affected.

Do others get to vote in US elections ?

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#383

Post by selfhoster11 »

mav3rick wrote: post #382
selfhoster11 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be only for China's people to decide? CCP's actions have global effects, China's people are not the only ones affected.

Do others get to vote in US elections ?

They should. If not votes, then at least a couple of representatives in the Congress to complain loudly every time the US wants to do something to make life harder for other countries.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#384

Post by valuearb »

unishark wrote: post #347
valuearb wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should be for the users to decide. My point is whatever they choose is likely going to be government monitored. And the US has done hundred of renditions without trial, so while far from the scale of China, US spy agencies still do some awful things.

> My point is whatever they choose is likely going to be government monitored. And _their_ point, which came first and you came here to argue against, is CCP monitoring is especially bad for particular political reasons.

I’m fine with the CCP monitoring cat videos.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#385

Post by y2kenny »

bigpumpkin wrote: post #362
leric wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about WeChat censoring your speech, is 1st amendment okay with that?

"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." Note the subject. So yes, the First Amendment is okay with any censoring of information by a foreign government or company.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

I don't see any mention of government there. Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? How do you reconcile ideologically or philosophically that it is not ok for US Congress to limit speech but ok for other powerful entities?

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#386

Post by coliveira »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #381
coliveira wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There should be legislation to determine this.

That isn't how our democracy works. Congress doesn't get to decide who gets to be president, the voters do. We don't have a prime minister. An executive order can literally declare anything it wants. If it goes against the law, that is where the courts come in. Congress can't tell the president what he can and cannot write, if the president writes an order that goes against the law, that is where the courts come in (…

Complete non-sense. The Congress has a prerogative of creating laws. It can decide what will happen in situations exactly like the social media case we see now. Executive orders, in a functioning democracy, should be the last resort for situations in which the president needs to act fast, for example, a war (already declared by Congress, by the way) or natural disaster situation.

What we see happening in the US is the fossilization of an authoritarian regime where the president creates de facto laws in the stroke of his pen and the Senate supports his undemocratic behavior, while Congress is kept powerless. The only thing left to check for abuses is the judiciary system, which has not been elected in the first place, and by the way can only limit the worst illegal excesses. It is essentially a "constitutional autocracy" in practice.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#387

Post by pishpash »

y2kenny wrote: post #385
bigpumpkin wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Note the subject. So yes, the First Amendment is okay with any censoring of information by a foreign government or company.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I don't see any mention of government there. Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? How do you reconcile id…

> Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution?

Because that's literally what the grandparent asked. You appear to have a completely different question.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#388

Post by pishpash »

ReptileMan wrote: post #211
linkjuice4all wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy laws for US citizens/persons (which might have first amendment implications anyway) and deal with WeChat through whatever mechanisms this newly-passed (and yet-to-be created) privacy law contains. So either WeChat, Facebook, and whoever can facilitate protected…

I am not sure it is 1A issue to begin with. US prohibiting US companies to work with overseas entities is commercial problem. A lot of gambling websites were shut down by court order and a lot of domains seized by FBI. So there is a lot of precedents about restricting US citizens access to foreign parts of the internet.

Well isn't that convenient? Whenever it's a commercial problem it cannot be a speech problem, according to you.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#389

Post by pishpash »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #383
mav3rick wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do others get to vote in US elections ?

They should. If not votes, then at least a couple of representatives in the Congress to complain loudly every time the US wants to do something to make life harder for other countries.

So let's see that first. But get in line behind DC residents and Puerto Ricans.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#390

Post by causality0 »

tehjoker wrote: post #305
causality0 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering RT is the propaganda arm of the Russian government, I don't blame them. That's like saying Russia is bad because they want to hamper Voice of America or the Ad Council.

It is, but at the same time the US government is so easy to criticize that much of RT's coverage is simply stating things that aren't widely disseminated because they are embarrassing and make fools of the people running US foreign policy. I won't say that RT coverage of Russia specifically won't have a slant, but foreign coverage of your country has the chance to be more honest in some regards because they are not u…

If you want independent coverage of American events look at, say, Al Jazeera. Russia Today isn't any better than Fox News.
Post reply on HN