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

701–710 of 994 posts

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

#701

Post by timewizard »

magicalhippo wrote: post #419
timewizard wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have more than 2 parties. You can vote against people. To me that's a tacit admission that you're accepting the proffer. As there's no way on your vote to indicate that it's a vote of protest vs. a vote of support. The candidate you vote for will see no difference. You'll have reduced your already meager position even further. I do not accept this. I mean if you want to get into the anti-democratic nature…

What if you could cast a negative vote? That is, you could either vote for one candidate, or against one candidate.

Technically I'd be voting against both.

If enough people do this then the candidates should be thrown out and a new election held.

This would lead to insane chaos but if everyone where an honest actor it could be beautiful.

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

#702

Post by timewizard »

tombert wrote: post #300
timewizard wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just judging you. Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with? I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?

> Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with? I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff" that seems to permeate around here, so it's not really a "gotcha" to point out that I'm being a judgmental asshole. > I take it you think no one could judge you for your position? I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions. You're free to think that position is st…

> I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff"

What is your goal?

> I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions.

People would hear more of them if they weren't so coarse. Be generous. You'd might be surprised what you're missing.

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

#703

Post by benmmurphy »

seek wrote: post #530

> In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approv…

I think these lawsuits with large damages against media companies are going in a bad direction. But this also includes the lawsuit against Alex Jones and the Covington kids lawsuit but I don't think you will find many people that have some kind of consistent principal when dealing with this. They will just have some magic rule that will mean the law suit against Alex Jones is good and Trump's law suit is bad or vice versa. There is even a similar thing going with this list of 1A violations from the current administration. Similar things went on with the last administration but I didn't see a Kreb's summary post but maybe I missed it.

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

#704

Post by getnormality »

someothherguyy wrote: post #309
getnormality wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past. If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala…

RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics.

If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.

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

#705

Post by Timon3 »

tstrimple wrote: post #520
Hojojo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet they're being told to say/think/do every single day by Trump, Fox News, and the rest of conservative or alt right media, including people like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan. They love being told what to think.

You can literally watch this stuff real time on the internet now. Trump does something awful. Conservatives online are confused and start asking questions. Talking points from Fox News come out and basically every single conservative online is parroting the party talking points handed down to them. No more confusion.

Thank you for pointing this pattern out. I've seen it time and time again, most prominently after Jan 6. I think a big part is the manipulation of online spaces, e.g. the subreddits - threads and comments counter the narrative are quickly deleted, and they start piling onto anyone who still disagrees, calling them RINOs and so on.

It's scary just how cult-ish this pattern is.

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

#706

Post by charlie90 »

timewizard wrote: post #125
Afforess wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is the minimum of civic duty, not the maximum.

Voting is not a civic duty. I have every right NOT to vote. It's my voice and I can use it as I please. Forcing me into a ballot box to pick between two awful choices is not civilized.

If you dont like any of the candidates, run yourself.

Choosing to do nothing is declaring that you dont care.

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

#707

Post by TOMDM »

harry8 wrote: post #687
TOMDM wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Twitter files that document the FBI requesting takedown of posts and accounts, Twitter internally debating the request, refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences? Those Twitter files? Meanwhile Trump is suing pollsters for publications he doesn't like; extorting law firms for representation as reparation for them representing clients that sued him, who is deporting lawful permenant residents without due…

> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters. It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.

No, comparing the two at this point is an attempt to pretend this insanity is the other side of the same coin. They're simply not.

Look at the spectrum.

1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above)

2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails

3. Someone threatens a harm against someone.

4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of harm if they were to be refused. (This is the worst you can reasonably claim the Twitter files as evidence for)

That is how far apart these two instances are. If you disagree please be specific because this claim that both sides are equivalent is absurd, especially when people refuse to ground out the example when confronted.

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

#708

Post by charlie90 »

nine_zeros wrote: post #46

I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law. I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights. I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the vot…

Most Americans cant name the branches of government, they dont even know what an executive order is.

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

#709

Post by raxxorraxor »

tw04 wrote: post #449
kopirgan wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gover…

Germany does have such laws that stem from its old monarchic honor culture and these laws are currently abused for political purposes. Laws that were in affect through its autocracies and were always abused as well.

Just saying that it might not be the best model.

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

#710

Post by skoopie »

rcpt wrote: post #356
skoopie wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should treat the Free Palestine and Tesla protesters the same way J6 protesters were treated. Throw them in prison until the next Democrat president pardons them.

J6 wasn't a protest

The court seems to disagree. None of them were charged with insurrection.
Post reply on HN