5 ms·

> How does this interact with the First Amendment? It doesn't interact with the First Amendment at all. Private corporations can make their own rules about wh

> How does this interact with the First Amendment? It doesn't interact with the First Amendment at all. Private corporations can make their own rules about what speech they will and will not allow. The First Amendment only deals with the government's ability to censor individuals, not a private entity's policies regarding allowable communications. Most Americans don't seem to understand this.

vageli 9y ago
Interestingly, this was not always the case in the United States.[0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
- sarah180 9y ago
  It's noteworthy that this rule existed for broadcast networks, under the rationale that they were entrusted users of a scarce shared/public resource (slices of the radio spectrum). Cable distribution of television doesn't involve a public resource and was treated differently.
smsm42 9y ago
There's however the broader value behind the First Amendment. While FA does only limit the government, the values of free speech and robust democratic debate are not limited to the government. Legal enforcement and government coercion can only go so far, and so can governmental support. If the society wants working democracy, FA - or other free speech protections - is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. This should be also supported in private actions and common values informing them. Otherwise free speech can not survive, even without direct governmental coercion - it would just be eliminated by other means. FA is not the source of those values, it is the consequence of them, and thus limiting the discussion only to FA ignores the wider meaning of it. I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position.
- neuromantik8086 9y ago
  If Americans were invoking the spirit of the First Amendment rather than appealing to a misunderstanding of its limits, then why not appeal to other precedents? By your logic folks should be invoking William and Mary's Bill of Rights rather than its American successor. > I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position. You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. I've had to point out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private employment numerous times in the past (i.e., this is not my first comment) in situations where the other commenter literally did not understand the Constitution and the basic history surrounding it. The demographic reading Hacker News is not at all indicative of the U.S. population at large and usually consists of college-educated, middle class knowledge workers. [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    FA is by far the most famous embodiment of the concept. > You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. You don't need to known details of government functioning to value free speech. Valuing free speech is one of those natural values most people - at least in American culture - embrace by default, without much need of educating them on the details. > [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment. That very well may be (though OP recognized their error in an edit), but the comment I responded to talked about "most Americans", not just one online commenter.

vageli 9y ago

Interestingly, this was not always the case in the United States.[0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

sarah180 9y ago
It's noteworthy that this rule existed for broadcast networks, under the rationale that they were entrusted users of a scarce shared/public resource (slices of the radio spectrum). Cable distribution of television doesn't involve a public resource and was treated differently.

smsm42 9y ago

There's however the broader value behind the First Amendment. While FA does only limit the government, the values of free speech and robust democratic debate are not limited to the government. Legal enforcement and government coercion can only go so far, and so can governmental support. If the society wants working democracy, FA - or other free speech protections - is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. This should be also supported in private actions and common values informing them. Otherwise free speech can not survive, even without direct governmental coercion - it would just be eliminated by other means. FA is not the source of those values, it is the consequence of them, and thus limiting the discussion only to FA ignores the wider meaning of it. I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position.

neuromantik8086 9y ago
If Americans were invoking the spirit of the First Amendment rather than appealing to a misunderstanding of its limits, then why not appeal to other precedents? By your logic folks should be invoking William and Mary's Bill of Rights rather than its American successor. > I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position. You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. I've had to point out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private employment numerous times in the past (i.e., this is not my first comment) in situations where the other commenter literally did not understand the Constitution and the basic history surrounding it. The demographic reading Hacker News is not at all indicative of the U.S. population at large and usually consists of college-educated, middle class knowledge workers. [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment.
- smsm42 9y ago
  FA is by far the most famous embodiment of the concept. > You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. You don't need to known details of government functioning to value free speech. Valuing free speech is one of those natural values most people - at least in American culture - embrace by default, without much need of educating them on the details. > [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment. That very well may be (though OP recognized their error in an edit), but the comment I responded to talked about "most Americans", not just one online commenter.