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

761–770 of 994 posts

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

#761

Post by shadowgovt »

smw wrote: post #168
shadowgovt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court Judges have careers that outlive Presidents. I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's…

He was ineligible this time based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS told Colorado they couldn't keep him off the ballot.

Unfortunately, he was never convicted of treason or any other crime that would involve the 14th Amendment.

I think we can understand why SCOTUS would ban Colorado from making that decision themselves, for much the same reason it bans Mississippi from having its own interpretation of the parts of the 14th Amendment about due process or citizenship.

In contrast, the 22nd Amendment is plain-letter law, so obvious that it brooks no interpretation.

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

#762

Post by DangitBobby »

chriscrisby wrote: post #723
DangitBobby wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing, as a kid I always wondered how fascism could take hold in a country, in history books they seemed to lay out the steps so clearly it should be easy to see and coming and stop it. Now that it's happening here, I now wonder how countries ever managed to keep fascism at bay. All it really takes is an unscrupulous public in love with its own opinions, and someone with a big voice who will tell them comforti…

As yes the tyranny of small Government

If you read TFA then it's not possible you think it's only about "small government" (whether you agree or not). Small government is a cute euphemism for intentionally turning everything to shit, though, keep it up.

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

#764

Post by andreygrehov »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #728
andreygrehov wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disagree with Trump as much as you want. There is an executive order signed by the President. None of those Reuters and the like explanations matter. Given the executive order is in place, it doesn’t matter who signed it. Since it’s coming from the White House, it’s perfectly valid to reference it.

Presidents can't declare war, so no, the US is not at war in either a technical legal sense nor in a practical sense. It's also not "an invasion" as per the Alien Enemies Act as clearly, Tren de Agua is not a government or a nation.

Ukraine is not at war with Russia. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Yet, Ukraine drafts its men like rats.

But wait - I can’t reference information shared by the White House because it’s all BS? Look, I’m not saying an executive order is a law, but it’s also not a sticky note. And let’s be honest, a ton of illegals have been coming to the U.S. Trump’s executive order didn’t come out of thin air.

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

#765

Post by unethical_ban »

YZF wrote: post #548
beej71 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is obviously not "just free speech". Sheesh. C'mon, man.

I am trying to make a point. Apparently very poorly. Either way, these Tesla protests are just idiotic. The vandalism is criminal. If this is the way Americans save their democracy and the rest of us rely on them then we're all doomed.

I went to a Tesla protest. It was entirely peaceful. I personally don't fault someone for buying a Tesla, particularly before Elon went loony. My goal for the protest is to bring to attention the fact that the owner of that car company is party to the authoritarian takedown of my country, and that people should not support that company any more if they can avoid it.

I agree that vandalizing peoples' cars is illegal, I don't think it is practically useful, and golly gee, we still have a criminal justice system (for now) that can be used to punish those who commit acts of violence.

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

#766

Post by shadowgovt »

rfrey wrote: post #162
shadowgovt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court Judges have careers that outlive Presidents. I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's…

For me, it was the assertion of presidential immunity that lost my trust.

That's complicated, but not actually unexpected. The Constitution lays out the process and authority to check the President's power, and that process flows from Congress. SCOTUS essentially said "If Congress didn't even find a violation that moved them to invoke their maximum penalty of removal-from-office, why on Earth does anyone think we would impose the law to punish the President's official actions where Congress did not?" SCOTUS can restrain Presidential action (by saying, essentially, "that order is illegal" so nobody need comply) but they've never claimed to have the authority to punish the person in the office for doing the job as best he can. Granted, this was new territory because no previous administration had opened the question of such a sanction... But it's not surprising that SCOTUS responded "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff? Hold on, let me check the Constitution... Nope, don't see it."

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

#767

Post by aredox »

al_borland wrote: post #721
aredox wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Excuse me sir, could I interest you into what happened on January 6 of 2020?

That was also wrong and I thought it was horrible.

And then? In the end, who did you vote for? The attorney or the coupist?

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

#768

Post by pmarreck »

clipsy wrote: post #242
pmarreck wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my edited response (that you replied to)

I saw it before posting, as you note, and it did not change my response. If you think it should, perhaps you should elaborate.

Sure. We have a situation where

1) the "West" is constantly at war with Islamists and their discontents in fights almost exclusively begun by them (I believe they are religion-motivated, based on my research, but that's another debate)

2) we have students on visas in the US who are supporting a widely acknowledged foreign terrorist organization, which goes against the letter of the law (which applies more to green-card holders than citizens)

3) people are assuming the worst about things they literally do not know about here

4) I am simply calling this out and getting downvoted as a result

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

#769

Post by raxxorraxor »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #747
raxxorraxor wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true, people championed others to be removed from all kinds of platforms. I am not inclined to defend any stupid opinion, but especially on topics like the pandemic people were cheering on others getting banned. There is a political cost to this and that does extend to people having little ground to criticise the current US administration on these grounds.

Free speech doesn't give you the right to a megaphone on every platform you see fit. It just protects you from government prosecution. As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance. Right now, the government is suppressing free speech according to the very definition of that term. How can you not see the difference.

You can do that as a moderator, but you still violate the principle of freedom of speech in that case. The is the prejorative of any group to do so.

I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement.

Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused about that and it isn't necessarily team Trump they blame for that. That is the reality why he now can claim to defend freedom of speech, even if it isn't really true.

> It just protects you from government prosecution.

The first amendment of the US does, but the principle goes beyond that. It is a necessary requirement for independent research for example. There is no law for it and it still is essential.

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

#770

Post by pmarreck »

albedoa wrote: post #246
pmarreck wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Please pick better sources that are less alarmist and more factual. You literally asked AI to write your argument for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43530149 Maybe cool it on the source policing.

Yes, and AI is demonstrably less biased than Slate is. Your point? Are you arguing for bias?

The article was worded extremely slantingly. It was at least clear to me. In emotional contexts, it's best to stick to the least biased stories you can find.

Post reply on HN