5 ms·
So hacker news shouldn't be allowed to remove spam comments?
by invalidusernam3 6y ago
So hacker news shouldn't be allowed to remove spam comments?
- CyberRabbi 6y agohacker news shouldn’t be allowed to censor legitimate information or dissenting political opinions, which is what is covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn’t mean you can literally say whatever you want, e.g. flood sites with spam.
- lozaning 6y agoWho gets to be the arbiter of "legitimate"?
- CyberRabbi 6y agoJudges do when a lawsuit happens under a civil rights violation case.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoJudges, who are government employees, would get to determine what speech is legitimate and what is not? No thanks, I’ll take the current system.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoThat’s literally how all civil rights are enforced.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoJudges can only enforce laws passed by Congress. “Congress shall make no law” seems like a much better plan to me.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoJudges do not enforce laws, they apply laws to specific situations, otherwise known as interpreting the law. “Congress shall make no law” is the text of the first amendment, which is in regard to limiting free expression, not expanding it.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoWouldn’t Congress have to make a law for judges to step in here, though? I’m not sure what you are suggesting, exactly.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoNo. Congress makes a law that declares the right to free speech to be a civil right. Judges would naturally step in when there is a contested violation of that right, as they currently do in all civil rights disputes .
- UncleMeat 6y agoSo HN needs a judge to remove spam?
- CyberRabbi 6y agoNo. HN would be able to remove spam freely. A judge is only involved if the spammer wants to waste money on a lawsuit where they are likely to lose
- Kiro 6y agoWhat is being amended? Use terms that people understand, please. This is an international forum.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoHacker news operates in the US and if the 1st amendment were made a civil right, it would have to obey that law.