4 ms·

If there was any serious discussion in the US about the utility of 1FA I would be willing to believe Americans were able to entertain it. What weaknesses with i

If there was any serious discussion in the US about the utility of 1FA I would be willing to believe Americans were able to entertain it. What weaknesses with it did you come up with when you entertained it?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
What weaknesses? You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness. I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. None of which you enumerated > But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > None of which you were willing to enumerate... Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you. > Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there? They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.) To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      > Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? Yes. It's the negatives you were unwilling to enumerate.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        But I suspect that some of the exact same negatives were showing up in Britain during Brexit, for example. (Can't say for sure, since I wasn't there and didn't see what the local conditions were.) And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify. Sauce for the goose...
        peteretep 6y ago
        > And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547 Anyway, in short, I'm sure (and I mean this) you're a smart and well-read guy or gal, but from your entirely circular arguments here I don't think you've ever seriously spent time considering what the alternatives to the first amendment are. Everything you've claimed to like about it is just as true in other free, rich countries, and the negatives you repeatedly decline to mention are largely absent. You've brought in libel as an example, which of course is _not_ protected by 1FA. The importance of 1FA at this point is a national religion.
      - damoe 6y ago
        From yesterdays news, Norway has now criminalized "hate speech" in a private context: https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic-transphobic-speech-illegal https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic... If you don't think this is negative, I guess we aren't talking about the same thing.
        peteretep 6y ago
        > Norway has now criminalized "hate speech" Did you actually read the article before reposting it? It's been illegal there since 1981. The article simply says it's been extended to include new groups. Yes, I absolutely think hate speech should be restricted, and the laws of most countries agree with that, with the USA being a notable exception: > A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

What weaknesses? You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness. I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.

peteretep 6y ago
> You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. None of which you enumerated > But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > None of which you were willing to enumerate... Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you. > Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there? They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.) To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? Yes. It's the negatives you were unwilling to enumerate.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      But I suspect that some of the exact same negatives were showing up in Britain during Brexit, for example. (Can't say for sure, since I wasn't there and didn't see what the local conditions were.) And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify. Sauce for the goose...
      - peteretep 6y ago
        > And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547 Anyway, in short, I'm sure (and I mean this) you're a smart and well-read guy or gal, but from your entirely circular arguments here I don't think you've ever seriously spent time considering what the alternatives to the first amendment are. Everything you've claimed to like about it is just as true in other free, rich countries, and the negatives you repeatedly decline to mention are largely absent. You've brought in libel as an example, which of course is _not_ protected by 1FA. The importance of 1FA at this point is a national religion.
    - damoe 6y ago
      From yesterdays news, Norway has now criminalized "hate speech" in a private context: https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic-transphobic-speech-illegal https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic... If you don't think this is negative, I guess we aren't talking about the same thing.
      - peteretep 6y ago
        > Norway has now criminalized "hate speech" Did you actually read the article before reposting it? It's been illegal there since 1981. The article simply says it's been extended to include new groups. Yes, I absolutely think hate speech should be restricted, and the laws of most countries agree with that, with the USA being a notable exception: > A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.