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

771–780 of 994 posts

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

#771

Post by unethical_ban »

timewizard wrote: post #293
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a wise man once said, there may not be anybody you are excited to vote for , but there is almost certainly somebody you would like to vote against .

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…

A civic duty is not a legal duty. You have the legal right not to vote. My opinion is you are failing your government and your own interests when you don't vote.

I agree that plurality voting is bad. We should have a system where candidates are ranked, so voter sentiment is better expressed and more than two candidates have a chance at winning.

The system we have now needs to be worked, until we get a new system. If you dislike all options equally, then vote for someone else as a protest. If you have a preference of one major candidate over the other, it is in your interest to express that. Sitting at home and doing nothing is the worst.

I challenge you to at least research ranked-pair or ranked choice voting (or any alternative form of voting) and write your city councilman about it. Or contact a voting reform organization to ask how you can help change your city.

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

#772

Post by anonfordays »

outside1234 wrote: post #283
ta8645 wrote: post #275

It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration. "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences", "free speech does not apply to hate-speech", "we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation", It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.

Don’t both-sides this. 99% of the attacks have been under the Trump administration.

[flagged]

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

#773

Post by andreygrehov »

aredox wrote: post #720
andreygrehov wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the night clubs are working, then what kind of a war is that? Obviously the video is just one of many others, eg it’s not limited to night clubs.

They are open for soldiers on official leave? But keep comparing being arrested by official police for draft dodging in the middle of a war for existence to sending secret hooded officers to arrest a brown-skinned scarf-wearing woman for supposedly antisemitism while your pal Boer Elon is doing Nazi salutes in public.

[flagged]

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

#774

Post by mattnewton »

timewizard wrote: post #292
mattnewton wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling things disinformation is not analogous to deporting people and threatening to withhold funds from colleges that don’t crack down on speech the government doesn’t like hard enough; I’m not claiming there was no civil liberty violated by any previous administration, I am claiming this is a serious escalation of a new kind of attack on the first amendment.

> I’m not claiming there was no civil liberty violated by any previous administration Well. There you go. We can argue about degrees between the red and blue ties but where would that get us? It's a ratchet. I can point out the many problems of the past administration and you can point them all out in this one, and in 8 years time, it will be worse. > I am claiming this is a serious escalation of a new kind of attack…

What are you even trying to say? These events are simply not analogous to the events of previous administrations. Please stop trying to reduce it to a partisan debate.

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

#775

Post by beej71 »

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 agree with you on vandalism, but how are the protests idiotic? And what's your suggestion for Americans saving their democracy?

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

#776

Post by mattnewton »

nsxwolf wrote: post #194
mattnewton wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Withholding federal funds from colleges for not cracking down hard enough on speech the government doesn’t like isn’t related to the first amendment? Or it is but it’s ludicrous?

1A is not about federal funds.

The 1A is regularly used to decide cases about funding as speech; Rosenberger v. University of Virginia for example forbade U of V from withholding funds from religious news organizations on campus.

I am sure there are arguments that this behavior is within the bounds of the constitution but the 1A definitely applies.

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

#777

Post by leovingi »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #726
leovingi wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay” Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI". I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the…

What I am expressing here is that practical things that all of us can agree are good and useful, such as helping impoverished kids, result in tangle positive consequences, an educated society has less crime, therefore net positive. This is a practical and real world positive consequence. >And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people". In contrast to your silly and inconsequential exam…

It is not an either-or proposition. It would be hard to find a single thing in this world that is 100% bad or 100% good.

I do agree that the article you posted is a very good implementation of equitable practices and I would think it difficult to find anyone who would disagree with the mandating of female test dummies. Mostly because it's a very simple-to-understand example and the implementation of it doesn't hurt anyone else or take away from one group to give to another.

My problem is the pretending that your example is what DEI actually is and any other examples, like the ones I posted, from a number of mainstream media publications no less, are, for whatever reason, NOT considered DEI or, as you put it, are just "silly and inconsequential examples".

Those "silly and inconsequential examples" are supported by every mainstream DEI proponent, including every single DEI department at every large publicly-traded company. There have been numerous articles posted both here on HN and on the wider web about how these DEI implementations turn out to work in practice when it comes to employment prospects, promotion availability and the issues with general hiring practices (lowering standards to achieve some magic number of "equity" in female/minority representation).

My suggestion - if you truly care about the programs such as the one you listed in your comment, you better make sure that's what DEI actually focuses on. Otherwise, you should not be surprised that it gets swept away along with everything else that people feel falls under the DEI umbrella.

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

#778

Post by greenie_beans »

unethical_ban wrote: post #760
greenie_beans wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and that makes you scared? you are playing into his hand if so. that makes me want to go to the streets even more.

They didn't use the term scared, and being scared is not implicitly "going into hiding". It's because I'm scared that I'm going to protest on April 5 in my state capital.

context clues suggest to me that the commenter is worried about militarized violence against protestors (scared)

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

#779

Post by albedoa »

pmarreck wrote: post #770
albedoa wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It was at least clear to me.

Yes, that is the problem.

It would be less concerning if it was not clear to you. Sharing that it was clear to you is evidence of the very deficiency in judgement that everyone is highlighting.

You are woefully ill-equipped to be making such assessments, yet you continue to do it with confidence despite everyone telling you why you're wrong.

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

#780

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #722
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values The USA already did: The first amendment literally includes the right to petition one's government, along with the other rights listed in the article as section headers. > just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing prot…

> The USA already did: you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. > Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN