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

961–970 of 994 posts

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

#961

Post by spiderfarmer »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #926
calf wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in t…

You see the same thing in this thread. People mock free speech absolutists because Musk may have trolled them a year ago. I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.

Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea?

No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.

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

#962

Post by spiderfarmer »

abeppu wrote: post #935
raxxorraxor wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wheth…

If he won't cite any literature, maybe he can find the Truth Social post he bases his worldview on.

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

#963

Post by latentcall »

leovingi wrote: post #690
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump and his ilk are literally “elites”, richest cabinet in history and that’s excluding the unelected SS cutter that meddles into everything. DEI, just so you know, also covers programmes that help poor communities by providing funding for education.

My entire life, professional and otherwise, DEI has ultimately stood for nothing other than "less white people". Of course it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI, but at the end of the day whenever someone uses the term "diverse" they are talking about "less white people". When the company John Lewis was criticized for a lack of diversity [1], it was because they had to…

When you have privilege, equality feels like oppression. I don’t know where I saw that quote from but I feel this summarizes your points.

Punish who for what? Can you demonstrably prove white people were harmed by DEIA? White people ran the last administration and this one too. What more do you want? Do you get upset if you see a black person drive a nicer car than you?

This anti-DEIA stuff is just cooked up to distract you from the real problems facing this country.

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

#964

Post by cutemonster »

h0l0cube wrote: post #948
cutemonster wrote: post #937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe. I'm not sure if FPTP necessarily leads to authoritarianism, but there's a whole bunch of countries that sill use the system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Cou... I think, though, that the US won't go full top-down authoritarian, because a large enough portion of the population is armed. Should some kind of coup ever be attempted, it could well spark a civil war – which is still doom,…

The population is unarmed. Small arms don't count, they're good for the shooting range and mass shootings, but not against a modern military.

But yes let's hope there will be elections again

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

#965

Post by raxxorraxor »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #961
raxxorraxor wrote: post #926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the same thing in this thread. People mock free speech absolutists because Musk may have trolled them a year ago. I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.

Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea? No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.

Yes, it is and this is projection again. We had years with arguments "they are a private company", "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", etc. pp.

Perhaps integrity would demand that people speak up and in my experience they indeed still do. But you shouldn't be surprised if the criticism is quite a bit less loud if it concerns speech from a politicized crowd that demanded more content control and censorship just a few weeks before. Petty? Maybe. Wrong? Maybe. But certainly not surprising that bad life decisions in the past do have an effect.

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

#966

Post by h0l0cube »

cutemonster wrote: post #964
h0l0cube wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. I'm not sure if FPTP necessarily leads to authoritarianism, but there's a whole bunch of countries that sill use the system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Cou... I think, though, that the US won't go full top-down authoritarian, because a large enough portion of the population is armed. Should some kind of coup ever be attempted, it could well spark a civil war – which is still doom,…

The population is unarmed. Small arms don't count, they're good for the shooting range and mass shootings, but not against a modern military. But yes let's hope there will be elections again

Numbers matter. Only a small amount of insurgents are needed to occupy the military, but if even 2% of the civilian population took up arms, the situation would become untenable. All the armed forces together constitute not much more than one million troops. And there would be also conscientious resistance within the armed forces to executive orders to shoot civilians.

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

#967

Post by throwawaymaths »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #855
throwawaymaths wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USA already did: you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. > Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?

> if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general. > to the point where the right to redress is abrogated? Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".

> This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general.

yes, i read the whole thing. as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it, because it makes me question the author's judgement and devalues the arguments downpage. if i were less patient i would have quit after the FOIA part.

> Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".

success requires a higher standard. but curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic: eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.

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

#968

Post by spiderfarmer »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #965
spiderfarmer wrote: post #961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea? No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.

Yes, it is and this is projection again. We had years with arguments "they are a private company", "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", etc. pp. Perhaps integrity would demand that people speak up and in my experience they indeed still do. But you shouldn't be surprised if the criticism is quite a bit less loud if it concerns speech from a politicized crowd that demanded more content control and cens…

Listen up, because this needs to be crystal clear: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with revoking someone’s platform when they violate terms and conditions that are no stricter than the rules you’d set for your own kids.

On the flip side, there is something profoundly, undeniably wrong — practically evil — when a government detains peaceful people not for breaking laws but for virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire in the midst of violent conflict. Which is the exact inverse of having sensible limits.

You can rattle off half-baked “maybe” and “perhaps” scenarios all day long and keep twisting definitions beyond recognition. You can continue to argue that governmental abuse of power is an inevitable consequence simply because the world contains some ugly, petty sociopaths that will hold grudges until they die. But by that logic there shouldn't be norms, limits, rules, terms, conditions or laws at all, because it will only inconvenience sociopaths on their rise to power and they'll eventually come after you.

Welcome to the paradox of tolerance. We need rules because it keeps our imperfect society civil.

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

#969

Post by acidmath »

protocolture wrote: post #959
acidmath wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite the take. My hat goes off to you, ya crazy bastard. <3

The problem with spam isnt the content, its the quantity. Lots of spam emails are for genuine services. But its generally accepted that because the speech is unwanted and the quanity of it lowers the quality of the platform, that its fine to filter it off. Free Speech absolutism should incorporate it, but doesnt. (Which sort of indicates its mostly about broadcasting their opinions rather than being in favour of all…

> people I do not align with and have fundamental disagreements with with should adopt this absurd viewpoint I am presenting as their own.

*honk honk*

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

#970

Post by mrtesthah »

soraminazuki wrote: post #955
mrtesthah wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the Obama administration had prosecuted GWB, the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump's presidential immunity would have superseded all that. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-...

My point is that even getting to that ruling would've been much harder if there was actual respect for the law and more importantly, the democratic values behind those laws. And by respect, I mean the general population actually enforcing it by holding those in power accountable.

True, in the event that government fails to hold someone accountable, it falls on the people to do that instead. I think there are different visions of what that justice looks like when carried out that way.
Post reply on HN