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

831–840 of 994 posts

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

#831

Post by russdill »

djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #758
russdill wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a wide range of case law covering such communications in light of such perceived possibility of legal threat. A lot of it culminated in Murthy v. Missouri. What you are suggesting is that the government cannot communicate anything of substance. If say an administration was against advertising medications and publicly said so, this could be viewed as coercing networks to not air such ads for fear of b…

Sorry but I don't follow. You're just saying that it doesn't matter legally, right? I'm not familiar with the law, but that makes sense that it would only be deemed illegal if one can show proof of retaliation. But in practice it surely can happen that a government can try to bankrupt your company without any visible evidence of retaliation. And while you'll have no legal recourse, it obviously matters to you very mu…

Basically there's a legal standard that involves a real and immediate threat. Murthy v Missouri is a good place to start:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

There's a ton of legal cases referenced from there. The current EOs against law firms would be an excellent example of real and immediate threat.

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

#832

Post by slg »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #817
slg wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as... intimate recordings of people taken without consent

Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?

How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.

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

#833

Post by cvz »

facile3232 wrote: post #810
collingreen wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some of us don't want to devolve into cutting off people's heads and asking questions later?

Perhaps if liberals read non-liberals they would have acquired an imagination in the last two hundred years. Obviously that's far from the only path forward outside of your sick fantasies.

Who should the unimaginative non-liberals read, and why?

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

#835

Post by pmarreck »

c0redump wrote: post #526
mptest wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the agency that arrested her told us why she was arrested, and it was "supporting terrorism" ie writing an oped opposing israel's genocide, when they certainly have no hesitation to mention the crimes when they are there?? Oh and the agency already has a well documented history of arresting innocent people? Look up "ice collateral arrests" "autism awareness deportation" or "soccer coach deported for real madr…

Don’t bother trying to convince him. He’s relishing in the brutality against people he hates. He might try to intellectualize it (in the spirit of HN), but it’s coming from a place of pure emotion. Namely, anger, bitterness, resentment, insecurity, fear, and hatred.

Absolutely ridiculous slander. I challenge you to find good evidence against any assertion I make, because I only state things after I have researched them (and not only that, I ask an LLM to counterargue me). I don't hate anyone, I despise ideologies (one of which you are possibly unwittingly representing, without even realizing it, perhaps), groupthink, and baseless assertions or beliefs.

And most certainly, baseless accusations like this. There's no such thing as "rationalized emotion" (which you seem to be insinuating with your "He might try to intellectualize it" remark); criticism is either baseless/purely-belief-based/non-factual, or it is at least based on good-faith facts and reason.

That emotion you detect? That has to do with the amount of misinformation and truth-twisting going on out there... And it's growing.

Simple example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doj-says-mahmoud-khalil...

Everyone was up in arms about this guy a few days ago; turns out he was intentionally hiding multiple red-flag affiliations; how would any government, much less the US, tolerate that?

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

#836

Post by verteu »

slowhadoken wrote: post #97

I can’t remember anyone respecting mainstream US news for the last 30+ years. Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question.

Asset managers do not control the news. Jack Bogle died with a net worth of $80mm. He was not even powerful enough to afford a top-tier penthouse in Manhattan, let alone control the media.

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

#837

Post by mmooss »

sepositus wrote: post #791
mmooss wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaders and others on the right have been embracing white (male) supremacy and Nazis, including Musk. It's not subtle; it's often brazen. > some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi I've never heard that. Can you give an example? I think much of what you say comes from the right-wing disinformation machine - it's their talking points, and doesn't reflect anything I've experienced. Can…

> I think much of what you say comes from the right-wing disinformation machine Here we are again. It seems to be the default mode for anything that doesn't match the mainstream narrative. Perhaps you've never heard of it because you haven't been misidentified with the right before? As a centrist, it happens a lot, and there have been plenty of instances where I was called a Nazi. Of course it's impossible for either…

So do you have any evidence or support what is so far an empty assertion?

"some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi"

If that's true in any significant way, there should be plenty of public examples.

Instead of engaging in a serious discussion, you resort to changing the subject, and (effectively) disinformation about me. I take that as a signal that the rest of what you say is equally baseless and only repeats the right-wing talking points.

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

#838

Post by NotMichaelBay »

sepositus wrote: post #322
NotMichaelBay wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what we know about disinformation shows people don't have to actually be bullied, they just have to think they're being bullied. Disinformation is cheap and apparently yields great returns.

I mean, this is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. We just attribute everything to disinformation and throw our hands up as if none of this was avoidable. I'm convinced that people on the right were called Nazi's long enough that some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi. To the point where they think there's no hope in ever reaching them. I saw this coming years ago. The r…

> We just attribute everything to disinformation

The full effect that disinformation has had on Americans is probably impossible to measure, but with evidence like the Mueller report, you cannot deny that it has had some tangible effect. With Russia's efforts and the outcome of the 2016 election, I would be surprised if they did not continue and even ramp up their efforts in subsequent elections.

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

#839

Post by mmooss »

luhsprwhk wrote: post #742
mmooss wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't. Do you mean that "the" post-WWII peace settlement didn't last? It seems to have worked very well. > It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed. That certainly played a big ro…

No, war by proxies is not peace.

Agreed, but there is far less war of any sort, and - almost miraculously - the near-total elimination of international war. It's a staggering accomplishment.

To say that some war remains is to make perfection the only standard. Let's reduce it even more, but to claim the post-war order hasn't overseen extraordinary peace, freedom and prosperity is ridiculous.

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

#840

Post by [deleted] »

justanotheratom wrote: post #461
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

let me paste the source for the fifth time in this conversation: If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below. Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd... MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN