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

911–920 of 994 posts

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

#911

Post by croes »

milesrout wrote: post #735
croes wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inappropriate by whom? Do you have a list of those books so I can check if I see the same kind of inappropriateness?

Inappropriate according to the school. Schools determine all sorts of things along those lines. They choose what to teach in the first place. Is that in violation of freedom of speech too? School libraries aren't unlimited. They can't contain every possible book. And you wouldn't want them to contain, for example, Playboy magazine or other actual pornographical publications. Schools are obviously allowed to determine…

They could decide "On the Origin of Species" is inappropriate, while the Bible which is full of violence isn't a problem.

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

#912

Post by mychael »

mmooss wrote: post #652
mychael wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I arrive at these conclusions the same way many of my classically liberal friends and fellow libertarians who support Trump do — by evaluating his actions through the lens of limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal restraint: • DOGE and Fiscal Discipline: The goal of cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget, a major libertarian priority. • Freedom of Speech: Consistently opposes online censorship. Appoi…

Lots of this is incredible: > Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy Mexico, Greenland, Canada, ... there's never been a more interventionist US president. > DOGE and Fiscal Discipline: The goal of cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget, a major libertarian priority. That doesn't make it align with classical liberal principles - especially when they discard the rule of law and do it as a dictator. Cutting government…

> Mexico, Greenland, Canada

Nice try. We are not at war with these countries and not even close to it either. Trump is the most non-interventionist president of the last few decades. This is an empirical and historical fact.

> That doesn't make it align with classical liberal principles - especially when they discard the rule of law and do it as a dictator. Cutting government is an act of Congress, not the executive.

Obama in Executive Order 13576: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to cut waste, streamline Government operations, and reinforce the performance and management reform gains my Administration has achieved, it is hereby ordered as follows..."

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/0...

> He is forcing them to abandon DEI and ESG;

Yes which is great - this is an example of reducing the size and scope of government. This amounted to less rules, smaller gov and undoing gov overreach. Again this is measurable and empirical action that proves a reduction in government power.

> extremes never before seen (freedom of speech)

There is a literally an EO on preventing online censorship. I'm not sure if you were in a Coma during Covid, but social media companies were censoring voices that have now shown to be entirely true.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/rest...

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

#913

Post by spiderfarmer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #826
spiderfarmer wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to look up what free speech actually means before engaging in discussions about it.

Free speech means a lot of different things. I like Ken White's framework https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... Free speech rights - The government shouldn't restrict speech Free Speech culture - Private institutions shouldn't punish speech Speech Decency - Individuals should judge others by their speech Incoherence - Nobody should be judged for anything they say

Families are also private institutions. Have you ever corrected your kids in a shouting match?

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

#914

Post by raxxorraxor »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #804
raxxorraxor wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do that as a moderator, but you still violate the principle of freedom of speech in that case. The is the prejorative of any group to do so. I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement. Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused abo…

You might want to look up what free speech actually means before engaging in discussions about it.

Let us use a reference here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Your interpretation is widely spread but also wrong. The government is only a relevant party if we talk about specific laws.

> As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance.

You then don't follow the principle of freedom of speech, simple as that. That is no crime, but you aren't liberal in these cases either.

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

#915

Post by spiderfarmer »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #914
spiderfarmer wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to look up what free speech actually means before engaging in discussions about it.

Let us use a reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Your interpretation is widely spread but also wrong. The government is only a relevant party if we talk about specific laws. > As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance. You then don't follow the principle of freedom of speech, simple as that. That is no crime, but you aren't liberal in these cas…

Taking away the megaphone is simply not incompatible with free speech and there will never exist a single person or institution who will adhere to what you say free speech means.

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

#916

Post by anal_reactor »

Conscat wrote: post #877
anal_reactor wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear Opposition to LGBT is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear...

Please refrain from trolling on Hacker News.

I'm just trying to express the idea that "it's obviously us who are the good guys and them who are the bad guys" applies equally to both sides.

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

#917

Post by navane »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #308
boroboro4 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m with you on attention economy I think it’s simplification of what’s going on: – we had very dysfunctional legislature for last 20+ years – quality of life is falling for majority of people This contributes to feeling of unfairness in the society which pushes authoritarian and populist ideas.

I hate that everywhere in the world when QoL falls people elect idiot authoritarians who make QoL worse

It's almost as if there's a third thing going on that both drives QoL down, and authoritarians up, instead of one leading to the other.

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

#918

Post by harry8 »

TOMDM wrote: post #707
harry8 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters. It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.

No, comparing the two at this point is an attempt to pretend this insanity is the other side of the same coin. They're simply not. Look at the spectrum. 1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above) 2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails 3. Someone threatens a harm against someone. 4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of…

You don’t stand on principle don’t expect the principle to stand.

No it’s them it’s always them…

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

#919

Post by harry8 »

aweiland wrote: post #844
harry8 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters. It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.

The twitter files were well curated by Musk and team to tell a certain story. Is that not the definition of a partisan smear job?

That is false.

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

#920

Post by raxxorraxor »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #915
raxxorraxor wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us use a reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Your interpretation is widely spread but also wrong. The government is only a relevant party if we talk about specific laws. > As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance. You then don't follow the principle of freedom of speech, simple as that. That is no crime, but you aren't liberal in these cas…

Taking away the megaphone is simply not incompatible with free speech and there will never exist a single person or institution who will adhere to what you say free speech means.

Depends on the circumstances, it very well can be. Who are you to decide who gets a megaphone or not? But abstractly you cannot really confirm or deny such statements.

But that is besides the point. The criticism of free speech isn't new, the arguments are always the same and usually those that argue for more restriction do end up being wrong. I don't see the path developing differently here.

To ask why Trump can capitalize on these issues, a careful reading might be appropriate as the result wouldn't be too surprising without needing to much predictive capacities.

Post reply on HN