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

931–940 of 994 posts

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

#931

Post by s1artibartfast »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #913
s1artibartfast wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have no clue what you are trying to say.

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

#932

Post by harry8 »

TOMDM wrote: post #921
harry8 wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t stand on principle don’t expect the principle to stand. No it’s them it’s always them…

My democracy for an example

The government successfully threatens a private company to make then censor.

Is that ok? Not for them.

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

#933

Post by AnimalMuppet »

School-Cotton wrote: post #818
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the people with guns swore an oath to the piece of paper, not to the man. If the piece of paper stops saying that he's the man...

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

#934

Post by slg »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #887
slg wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 p…

Keep in mind that in my comment, I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms", and you'd still be open to legal action by harmed parties if you defame them. So I think we can pretty reasonably answer your questions from that standpoint, with the fairly non-controversial addendum that airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certai…

>I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms"...airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.

Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?

I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.

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

#935

Post by abeppu »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #923
abeppu wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the swerve that makes free speech absolutism less credible now than a generation ago is the prominence that lies and misinformation have gained in the discourse. I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK pro…

That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before. Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech. > When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't…

My claim is that intentionally dishonest speech shouldn't obviously enjoy the same protections as earnest speech.

> That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.

That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...

- In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false.

- The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity.

- The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity.

- Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies.

- The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required.

- The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth.

Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth."

We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods.

If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.

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

#936

Post by cutemonster »

navane wrote: post #917
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you have in mind?

Or many things at the same time? One could be globalisation, making those with resources richer, and making workers unemployed?

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

#937

Post by cutemonster »

h0l0cube wrote: post #616
OccamsMirror wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet. Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.

Hot take: it's a failure of democratic competition. The US doesn't have proportional representation, and it's long maintained a duopoly of two electable parties, and a first-past-the-post system that makes any vote for a 3rd party a waste. This, coupled with the Democrats not fronting up a reformist candidate when they could have (Sanders shot down twice), permitted the only anti-establishment candidate to win, and t…

Makes sense to me. I've been thinking: The US was doomed from the start? Because of the laws that makes it a two party country? It was just a matter of time, and for mass manipulation tools to appear?

Are there any more doomed two party countries waiting to go authoritarian / fascist?

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

#938

Post by mmooss »

mychael wrote: post #912
mmooss wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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.

Trump has only been in office for two months. He's clearly threatening to take intervention to never before seen levels.

> Obama in Executive Order 13576 ...

Obama's executive order and actions were within the rule of law, "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America". Very many of Trump's are not; Trump openly challenges and disregards any limit from law or the courts.

> [DEI/ESG:] Yes which is great - this is an example of reducing the size and scope of government.

It doesn't matter if you think it's great. It's stopping private organizations from doing what they choose - that is government using its power to compel behavior.

> There is a literally an EO on preventing online censorship

Human rights - freedom - is universal or it's nothing. It's just Trump protecting his friends and persecuting his enemies - the opposite of freedom.

They are arresting people in the street and deporting them for speech, forcing schools to censor students and faculty, forcing leaders of business and journalism to avoid criticism and even to support him - as just one example, look at the law firms he is extorting for representing parties critical of him.

It's also oppressive to force private companies - social media companies - to adopt policies Trump prefers, including about moderation.

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

#939

Post by TOMDM »

harry8 wrote: post #932
TOMDM wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My democracy for an example

The government successfully threatens a private company to make then censor. Is that ok? Not for them.

But that's not what happened in the Twitter files.

Requests were made, no threats. Some were complied with when Twitter agreed, some were denied.

There were no consequences for the refusals.

Please, cite a specific threat. A lawsuit, a link, a source, a quote, anything. And if you link the Twitter files themselves, let's make sure we actually run their sources to ground, because what they present them as and what they actually say are two different things.

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

#940

Post by spiderfarmer »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #920
spiderfarmer wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cap…

"It depends" "It can be" "Cannot confirm or deny" "Might be appropriate" "Wouldn't be surprising"

This is tiring. Have a good day.

Post reply on HN