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

901–910 of 994 posts

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

#901

Post by try_the_bass »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #868
h0l0cube wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of toleranc…

I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked. If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.

> These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening.

These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.

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

#902

Post by protocolture »

acidmath wrote: post #900
cycomanic wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 socia…

So free speech absolutism shouldnt extend to bad faith?

Well that brings us right back to the moderation free speech absolutists are angry about.

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

#903

Post by etchalon »

pmarreck wrote: post #851
etchalon wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visa holders have all of what most would consider "foundational rights" as any citizen. They have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. The government revoking a visa based on categories of behavior which are protected by those foundational rights is appalling.

I have looked into the legal basis of this. As a visa holder, you are enjoying a privilege, not a right. And to keep holding that privilege, you cannot openly support enemies of the state. Whether this is actually enforced or not is immaterial- that's the law as it currently stands. As a citizen , you can verbally support enemies of the state, but you cannot financially support them. INA § 237(a)(4)(A): If a visa hol…

The student in question participated in a protest in support of Palestinians, not Hamas. There is no evidence presented they provided material support to Hamas, and there is no evidence they provided verbal support of Hamas.

So yes, it's controversial that a student, participating in a student protest, protesting a war, was deported without due process.

And this is before we mention the government has admitted, in court document, that they illegally deported a visa holder to El Salvador, and "oops" since he's already in a prison overseas there's nothing our court system can do about it.

So yes, controversies abound with the way this administration is "enforcing" immigration law.

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

#904

Post by insane_dreamer »

shadowgovt wrote: post #761
smw wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I disagree it's as obvious as you think. He could run for VP and then act as de-facto President. It says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" - in that case, he would have been _elected_ Vice President, not President.

And as as far as the 12th Amendment goes, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The 22nd amendment doesn't explicitly say he cannot serve as President, it just says "no person shall be _elected_ to the office of President".

Yes, the spirit of the constitution clearly prevents a 3rd term, but it could be possible to employ a very literal interpretation that allows the above.

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

#905

Post by tptacek »

slowhadoken wrote: post #814
kasey_junk wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

You're wrong. It's explicitly against the rules, as Kasey said.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

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

#906

Post by remarkEon »

blochist wrote: post #812
remarkEon wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Seems unrelated to my point. A visa is a privilege that can be revoked for bad or antisocial behavior. It would be very problematic if that were not the case.

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

#907

Post by GrumpyCat42 »

wredcoll wrote: post #894
GrumpyCat42 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If calling half of your opponents supporters bigots while simultaneously giving the bigots the marketing opportunity of a lifetime isn't a massive campaign problem, then what is? I still see and block people who have "deplorable" in their name eight years later.

He insults christians and veterans, and yet they vote for him overwhelmingly. The rules and issues are obviously different for the left and the right, and whataboutism just doesn't work. Fighting the "fair fight" instead of the actual fight won't end well.

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

#908

Post by totallymike »

DangitBobby wrote: post #636
totallymike wrote: post #247

See this other HN thread for concrete examples of how the climate is currently fucked. I genuinely can’t tell if the commenters are trying to be satirical, but the point seems moot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657

I think you linked the wrong thread, this one is about DOGE.

No, that’s the correct thread. It looks like the comments I saw have been deleted, but folks were accusing the author of the article of terrorism and anticipating the author’s arrest for having written it

Edit* turns out the comments are still there, just flagged and dead.

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

#909

Post by slowhadoken »

tptacek wrote: post #905
slowhadoken wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're wrong. It's explicitly against the rules, as Kasey said. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[flagged]

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

#910

Post by slowhadoken »

verteu wrote: post #878
slowhadoken wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group each respectably manage trillions of dollars in asset, private equity, and debt. They're independent firms but each own substantial shares in one another. Together these 3 firms are major shareholders in FAANG (big US tech) and mainstream US news agencies. BlackRock alone has disclosed through their latest SEC filings that it holds stakes in 5,387 companies globally. https:…

If managing clients' shares gives them such colossal power, how come the founder of Vanguard was worth less than the founder of In-N-Out Burger?

The Medici Family was powerful because they were bankers of the papacy, i.e., they managed the Pope's finances.
Post reply on HN