5 ms·

Not a lawyer, but my understanding after lots of reviews with people who are lawyers, is the law pretty clear here. First, there is no such thing as academic f

by nataz 7y ago

Not a lawyer, but my understanding after lots of reviews with people who are lawyers, is the law pretty clear here. First, there is no such thing as academic freedom in the US Constitution. As for the NSF example, lying IS a crime depending on the circumstances. So is fraud. In the case of an NSF Grant, it can be a federal crime. One of my key frustrations when talking about this is the complete lack of understanding of free speech issues in the US by people who claim to be the defenders of free speech (not you the poster, but certainly folks in the article). Free speech as a legal concept doesn't apply. Even if you wanted to tie it back to State Constitutions (because some schools are State schools), in this case it is the State institution that is limiting its own speech. The paper belongs to the school, not a private entity. The government is allowed to moderate it's own speech. That's the point about needing an independent and free press. State run news is the opposite of free speech.

murgindrag 7y ago
I understand the bounds of laws as written, but I think this is confusing several different issues: * "Free speech" is a broad human right e.g. written into the UN Declaration of Human Rights * "The First Amendment" is a short piece of text written a couple hundred years ago * That text places a minimum bar on what the government may and may not do based on two hundred years of interpretation, some of which may be correct and some not. We can refer to this as "prevailing legal interpretation of the first amendment" * Finally, even private universities receive a tax exemption as 501(c)3 not-for-profit, and federal subsidizes through research funding and tuition subsidies. Citizens donate to universities in the belief that there are sufficient checks-and-balances for concepts like academic freedom to make them forces for good. This gives the government broad rights and responsibilities to regulate them. We can define what the government ought to do as "good public policy." For news.ycombinator.com, the government, with relatively narrow exceptions, has neither the right nor the responsibility to restrict the site operator. If Paul Graham wants to limit content to nerds discussions, albeit filtering out anything over-critical of Google, that's his right under the 1st amendment. On the other hand, the government can and should have comprehensive checks-and-balances around universities. There is a growing number of scandals, representing a growing level of corruption (yes, I understand that I did not justify this statement -- it'd be going down a long rabbit hole). As good public policy, the government has a responsibility to manage that. If a universities wants to exist where millions of dollars of alumni donations are funneled into administrator pockets, research is fabricated, and administrators go to barely-legal Epstinesque parties, that's okay too -- just not with 501(c)3 status, Pell Grants, and NSF funding. By the way, the government often does NOT have rights to limit its own speech in the same way a private corporation does. Government employees are generally NOT under NDA, generally cannot be punished for e.g. writing newspaper articles or whistle-blowing, and I can get many types of internal discussions under FOIA. There are complex legal boundaries here, and I'm not trying to convey any sort of absolute rights or protections, but those contours are quite different than HN as well. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sued-people-he-blocked-twitter-constitution-liberals-636296 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sued-people-he-blocked...

by nataz 7y ago

murgindrag 7y ago

I understand the bounds of laws as written, but I think this is confusing several different issues: * "Free speech" is a broad human right e.g. written into the UN Declaration of Human Rights * "The First Amendment" is a short piece of text written a couple hundred years ago * That text places a minimum bar on what the government may and may not do based on two hundred years of interpretation, some of which may be correct and some not. We can refer to this as "prevailing legal interpretation of the first amendment" * Finally, even private universities receive a tax exemption as 501(c)3 not-for-profit, and federal subsidizes through research funding and tuition subsidies. Citizens donate to universities in the belief that there are sufficient checks-and-balances for concepts like academic freedom to make them forces for good. This gives the government broad rights and responsibilities to regulate them. We can define what the government ought to do as "good public policy." For news.ycombinator.com, the government, with relatively narrow exceptions, has neither the right nor the responsibility to restrict the site operator. If Paul Graham wants to limit content to nerds discussions, albeit filtering out anything over-critical of Google, that's his right under the 1st amendment. On the other hand, the government can and should have comprehensive checks-and-balances around universities. There is a growing number of scandals, representing a growing level of corruption (yes, I understand that I did not justify this statement -- it'd be going down a long rabbit hole). As good public policy, the government has a responsibility to manage that. If a universities wants to exist where millions of dollars of alumni donations are funneled into administrator pockets, research is fabricated, and administrators go to barely-legal Epstinesque parties, that's okay too -- just not with 501(c)3 status, Pell Grants, and NSF funding. By the way, the government often does NOT have rights to limit its own speech in the same way a private corporation does. Government employees are generally NOT under NDA, generally cannot be punished for e.g. writing newspaper articles or whistle-blowing, and I can get many types of internal discussions under FOIA. There are complex legal boundaries here, and I'm not trying to convey any sort of absolute rights or protections, but those contours are quite different than HN as well. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sued-people-he-blocked-twitter-constitution-liberals-636296 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sued-people-he-blocked...