How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack • Hacker News Board

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

#811

Post by facile3232 » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

cvz wrote: post #549

facile3232 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right. Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will. So I say, fuck it, let's just all accept that government is shitty and mostly exists to squeeze us for money. We can finally stop acting like it's representati…

> Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will. That is an obviously wrong statement even if we only look at protests within the past 5 years.

[flagged]

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

#812

Post by blochist » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #679

PieTime wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Visa isn’t being denied for a crime. It’s targeting specific speech of protestors and that should be unconstitutional. Anti-BDS laws fall in the same category and those impact US citizens. You can refuse to hire based on beliefs but the government has no right to tell you what to say. If you commit a crime or materially support terrorism you have a day in court.

Not following. These visas are at the pleasure of the government. The argument you're making is that once these visas are granted we are conferring the same rights as those of citizens, which is not true. If someone gets a student visa and comes here, to go to Columbia or NYU or Stanford or wherever, and all they do is agitate protests and cause trouble it seems reasonable that this visa should be revoked, yes? They…

And where in the Constitution do we find this notion of "rights of citizens". The Constitution governs how the federal government is allowed to act and the powers it has been given (by the states and people).

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

#813

Post by andreygrehov » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:26 PM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #793

andreygrehov wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said Ukraine is doing anything illegal (although the legality of literally dragging people into a military car might be something to question). See my very first comment. Watch the video on Slate, then watch the videos I shared. Looks like many people on HN are getting triggered when you mention the inhumane treatment of Ukrainian men by Ukraine.

Your initial comment was meant to draw some type of equivalence between a person being arrested in America for writing an op-ed and for people being drafted for war in Ukraine. Now you're 5 comments deep tying yourself in odd knots like "the US is being invaded by a foreign government" and "Ukraine is not at war" and "executive orders can overrule Constitutional due process rights." You created your own confusion, my…

You're misrepresenting my original point. My initial comment was to highlight the act of capturing someone off the street, not to equate that with arrests over op-eds or argue legal parity between Ukraine and the US.

I never said "the US is being invaded by a foreign government". I referenced information publicly shared by the White House. That’s a valid source, regardless of who signed the executive order. We don’t get to dismiss official government communication just because we dislike the administration.

Also, I was replying directly to _your_ points, not shifting the topic. You brought up the US legal system, war declarations, and due process. I simply responded to each.

Legally speaking, Ukraine has not declared war on Russia, so saying "Ukraine is not at war" is technically correct.

And finally, I never claimed executive orders can override constitutional rights - that’s a straw man. Let’s focus on what was actually said rather than rewriting it to make it easier to attack.

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

#814

Post by slowhadoken » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:44 PM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #738

slowhadoken wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. You are engaging in behavior that is explicitly against the rules here. You should stop.

[flagged]

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

#815

Post by raxxorraxor » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

spiderfarmer wrote: post #806

raxxorraxor wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it is not and it is also contradicting the definition of freedom of speech, first sentence: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate. Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.

Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, not actions taken by private entities.

Yes, the first amendment is restricted to that, but you proposed some statement would be supportive of freedom of speech. But instead it is contradictory to the definition.

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

#816

Post by mrtesthah » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

soraminazuki wrote: post #472

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They started this tactic of "They're bad dudes trust us don't need a trial" during the Bush administration and many many people pointed out this would come to our shores soon, and it did and it's here again.

Yeah, not prosecuting serious violations of law like war crimes, tortue, and mass surveillance was a serious mistake that lead to this situation. It reinforced a culture of impunity for those in power. Because people allowed this to happen, the current administration is now more emboldened than its recent predecessors ever have been.

Even if the Obama administration had prosecuted GWB, the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump's presidential immunity would have superseded all that.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-...

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

#817

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:56 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #575

davorak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> free speech absolutist An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himse…

You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech"…

I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).

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

#818

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:59 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #796

School-Cotton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Because a piece of paper says he’s not allowed to? Pieces of paper say a lot of things; sometimes they’re followed, sometimes not.

That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. He wants us to not follow it? Fine, but he may not like the consequences, which are that he's no longer someone that we have to listen to or who has any actual power. He's just a real estate developer who thinks he's somebody important.

> That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power.

No it isn't. People have power because people with guns follow their orders, not because of what a piece of paper says.

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

#819

Post by unethical_ban » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 6:10 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #654

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…

Responding in good faith, here. As far as I can tell, what people who voted for Trump have a problem with - and are thus quite happy with as far as action from this Administration is concerned - is that while there are ostensibly only three branches of the Federal Government (the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial), there is in fact a fourth. This fourth branch is the administrative state, and it is (in the…

Agencies are created and funded by the legislature. The executive operates them, and has some discretion over their operations and priorities.

Rank and file workers have protections from firing by the executive because if they didn't, we would have the corrupt patronage systems we had 100 years ago.

Independent watchdogs at each agency are protected because political insulation is a requirement for such a role.

Put simply:

Authoritarianism is strongman politics where courts are ignored, and one/few people exert almost total control over the operation of government, ignoring any legal constraints on their power, and any criticism of the ruling party is inherently fake and illegitimate.

Fascism is the right wing brand of authoritarianism.

Reasonable people can debate spending levels or efficiency. But this administration is not interested in that. They are permanently destroying America's place in the world and at least temporarily, and illegally, destroying parts of the federal government. All while participating in eye watering levels of corruption and judicial self-service (firing prosecutors investigating friends, firing generals without cause, calling for impeachment of every judge they don't like).

Our government's design is broken. Our voting system only permits two parties. Our house districts are geographically manipulated. The electoral college further obfuscates the election or president.

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

#820

Post by tremon » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 6:12 PM UTC

wrs wrote: post #364

sega_sai wrote: post #78

As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)

What we’re experiencing is a group exploiting the biggest vulnerability in the American system, one that was known to the founding fathers. If you can get enough people to vote for you and your friends, then all of the checks and balances will eventually fail against you, because in the end they’re all dependent on the populace not voting for people who corrupt the system. It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible t…

Not entirely true, they did consider that possibility, and their solution was the electoral college: the only reason for its existence is as a safeguard against installing a populist president that would corrupt the system.