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

891–900 of 994 posts

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

#891

Post by johnnyanmac »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #725
dragonwriter wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is They do and have been exploiting it for a while. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220... “House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats,…

I think we are severely underestimating what Democrats are up against here. A recent episode of This American Life Ten Things I Don't Want to Hate About You [0] gives just a absolutely mind bending look at just how bad the situation is with a subset of the American public. The synopsis is that the father in this family has been so taken by conspiracy theories that it's breaking apart a family. To settle things, he ma…

If the cult doesn't vote or is overrun by engaged normal people, then we can dismisss them as that father did his family. Cults aren't necessarily known for their majority rule (exposing them to the public is often poison to them).

People engaged in going to townhalls are absolutely a great measure of what will actually happen at the polls. Especially in non-national elections which often have a small fraction of turnout and a few hundred votes can swing an entire election.

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

#892

Post by johnnyanmac »

giantg2 wrote: post #294

It's a little surprising to see the reactions. It's some sort social phenomenon. It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time. Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways). However, almost all of these actions have precedent in prior administrations. It would be nice if we can strengthen protections against abuses, but my guess is that as soon as we get a new admi…

> It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time.

Lucky 10k: https://xkcd.com/1053/

>Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways).

Yes, that is a big factor. Big difference between covert guantanomo bay arrests and outright making which house announcements about El Salvadar. They are saying the quiet part out loud and people can't ignore it any longer.

>my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.

Well yes. Policy is a full time+ job and most people don't have the time and energy to watch every action of their government.

It's up to the reps elected to keep that momentum up.

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

#893

Post by johnnyanmac »

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 and throw our hands up as if none of this was avoidable

Well yes. it was. This was avoidable, but not by those fooled with fear from lies. It came from the rational people who felt their vote didn't matter, or that fell for obvious distractions as if somehow Trump was better because their aligned candidate wasn't the perfect progressive.

>Both sides are too busy pointing fingers now to really want to do anything about it.

if you only focus on the radicals, it's not surprising you become radical yourself and cast aside the grand majority of moderates. That both sidesing narrative is also a trick.

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

#894

Post by wredcoll »

GrumpyCat42 wrote: post #264
wredcoll wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020. People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Both kamala and hillary clinton ha…

> People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Surely a mother-knows-best attitude will work. > Both kamala and hillary clinton had those. Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work. > People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights. Surely strawmanning any solid, mode…

> Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.

Yeah, those are totally "massive campaign problems". Massive. Gigantic. Career ending.

Oh wait, Trump constantly throws out insults and associated with morally repugnant people. He insults christians and veterans and still got elected. I don't think these are the real issues.

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

#895

Post by BrenBarn »

jerlam wrote: post #543
BrenBarn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Executive order vs. legislation is a meaningless distinction to most people. What most people care about is what they or someone else can get in trouble for and what consequences they will face, and more generally just how good they perceive their life to be. It's like trying to distinguish between two diseases with long latinate names; what matters is how sick you feel and what treatment will stop it. Insofar as peo…

Side discussion, but the United States having two separate, elected legislative and executive branches is kind of lousy. It makes it difficult, as you say, to understand who is responsible for anything. Yet we have somehow convinced ourselves that it is the best system, because we have also convinced ourselves we are the best country. Most countries with parliamentary systems don't have this problem, where a person v…

Maybe, but I think another part of it is just a dangerously broad construal of the whole concept of executive power. Executive means you execute. Someone else should decide. Executive authority just means you are authorized to do what someone else said should be done. We have gone down a weird road in the US with the creation of "quasi-legislative" agencies that are created by Congress but are then under the control of the president although their function is essentially legislative. Instead Congress should just be able to entirely specify every aspect of those bodies' operations, including what (if any) the president's role is. In other words, the president can "use" executive authority, but the legislature should be in charge of deciding what counts as executive authority in the first place. If congress wants to delegate power to arbitrary bodies with no presidential involvement, they should be able to do so by passing a law as usual.

You can of course say that a reckless executive (like the one we have now) would still run amok, but I think we'd have less of a problem if these matters had been clarified long ago.

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

#896

Post by wredcoll »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #864
wredcoll wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, what a brave and inspiring position to take. Thank you for signalling your virtue so loudly.

They (the two major political parties in the US) are consistently and provably full of shit and you're mad at me for pointing it out? Not sure what that means. Likewise I reject any claims of virtue signaling when what I'm actually doing is expressing life-long disappointment and frustration at a very nearly complete lack of political representation.

I mean, I'm mostly criticizing your post, since I'm not allowed to downvote it, I have to use my words.

But it's the definition of virtue signaling. There is absolutely a group of people who think it is virtuous to be "above the fray" and "smarter than everyone else" and it's represented by loudly denouncing "both sides" and implicitly positioning yourself as better than them.

I mean, ultimately I would have preferred you just not post that so I didn't have to read it, but then I went and replied to you and replied to your reply so now I'm hypocritically adding more garbage to the thread.

All that being said, since I'm writing something at all, I am genuinely frustrated at people who say things like "lack of political representation". America has an absolute ton of representation at every level and if you want to be heard, you absolutely can be.

But beyond that, this is a representative democracy which means you need to compromise with other people in order to move forward. Those compromises are called political parties. You're never going to have a massive country wide political party that represents the exact details of your needs and wants, but what you can do is influence the existing ones to move closer to your goals.

So, you know, the next time you're given a choice of people to vote for, think about which one is going to move you closer to your goals and which one is going to move you further away.

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

#897

Post by gmueckl »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #865
gmueckl wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. Although it uses a different word on the surface, it really is the same legal concept.

"speech" and "opinion" have very different legal definitions.

I would like to read about the difference in the definitions of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expressing one's opinion" with consideration of applicable case law. Right now, I don't see any real difference in how this is adjudicated in courts.

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

#898

Post by webninja »

kacesensitive wrote: post #428
webninja wrote: post #390

He’s helping make the left care about free speech again. Something they wanted to continue censoring.

Ah yes, nothing screams “free speech hero” like a guy who tried to censor the press, punish critics, and begged Twitter to silence his enemies.

You completely missed what I was saying.

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

#899

Post by forgetfreeman »

wredcoll wrote: post #896
forgetfreeman wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (the two major political parties in the US) are consistently and provably full of shit and you're mad at me for pointing it out? Not sure what that means. Likewise I reject any claims of virtue signaling when what I'm actually doing is expressing life-long disappointment and frustration at a very nearly complete lack of political representation.

I mean, I'm mostly criticizing your post, since I'm not allowed to downvote it, I have to use my words. But it's the definition of virtue signaling. There is absolutely a group of people who think it is virtuous to be "above the fray" and "smarter than everyone else" and it's represented by loudly denouncing "both sides" and implicitly positioning yourself as better than them. I mean, ultimately I would have preferre…

> I mean, ultimately I would have preferred you just not post that so I didn't have to read it

Common ground!

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

#900

Post by acidmath »

cycomanic wrote: post #692
acidmath wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.

And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?

Spam can be whatever who so happens to be the site moderator, or maybe some very tiny yet obnoxiously vocal minority, wants it to be.

Beyond that practical matter, the least bad definition I have for spam (and this is just off the top of my head right now) is: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.

Any of us who are being honest with ourselves, maybe with exception to the acutely socially challenged, know spam when we see it.

Post reply on HN