7 ms·

Maybe make Protecting free speech part our governments highest law. Maybe we could amend the law. Seriously. Lots of people love to dump on the constitution a

Maybe make Protecting free speech part our governments highest law. Maybe we could amend the law. Seriously. Lots of people love to dump on the constitution as old and not relevant. But it’s meant to restrict government and protect people’s freedom.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
B-but what if people say mean things? :/
- chaos986 6y ago
  That's part of the Sophie's Choice. If we have private owned social media, then they will moderate according to public opinion. If we have us government run social media then we have no moderation at all because 1st amendment applies only to us government. So is it morally allowable to discuss <abhorrent topic> online? Should it be law to allow or disallow <abhorrent topic>? Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    I think you central questions it the most important one, but the dichotomy between private and public is forced. A phone company is not forced to moderate the communication of its clients.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      I don't believe parent said they were forced, only that they would do it. And that makes sense, since their desire is to minimize damage to their brand. There is a simple solution to this if you don't like the way they behave: stop using their product, and recommend others do the same. Of course, your not using it doesn't prevent others from using it if they want to, but that's freedom of choice for you.
      - zarkov99 6y ago
        I am all for the free market, but when companies grow too dominant it no longer works, and we should not pretend otherwise. Just look at what happened to Parler.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        These companies hardly have a monopoly on internet communication, case in point: Parler is still around!
        zarkov99 6y ago
        One of us is misinformed . Parler is not around as a working social media website as of a few minutes ago.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        Alright, I jumped the gun there I guess. Last I heard they did find hosting elsewhere because, and this is the important point, none of the companies that shut them down had a monopoly on internet communication.
    - monkeywork 6y ago
      true but the analogy falls apart when you realize that 99% of phone conversations are peer to peer and between 2-4 people. social media posts can be a single person communicating with millions. the damage per unit of effort is much much lower for the unmoderated phone vs the unmoderated social
      - zarkov99 6y ago
        I agree, its an open problem. One one hand no one elected these companies as arbiters of what is good but on the other society at large is not equipped to handle the tsunami of speech that the internet enabled. Something has to be done.
thephyber 6y ago
From my perspective, you just flipped the purpose of 1A. Right now you have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever you like (protected classes aside). In your altered future, the government forces churches to allow atheists and rival religions to be allowed to speak at the church, despite the desires of the owners and congregation. It would effectively be compelled association.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Nonsense. Trouble is when government gives out monopolies, or supporting monopolies they like. Government currently closed side. Government has chosen atheism as its religion. Very hostile toward other religions. Everyone pays for government school, but want to a Christian education, then you have to pay twice.
  - rizpanjwani 6y ago
    >Government has chosen atheism as its religion You're gonna want to provide proof of that claim.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    I find the monopoly issue troubling, but I don’t understand how your proposal fixes it. Government schools aren’t atheist - they are secular. They simply aren’t allowed to teach Christianity because Jews and Muslims would have the same “I have to pay twice” complaint you mentioned. Also, what you say about Christian education is factually wrong. There are plenty of places in the USA where you can find a Christian Charter school or use school vouchers.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    That's like saying virginity is a fetish. Atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of belief in a supernatural deity.
    - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      It's belief in the lack of a supernatural deity. Subtle difference, as required by the topic.
frankfrankfrank 6y ago
I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic, but to your last point; I think it is overlooked (intentionally or not) that the Constitution is already a set of laws and the highest laws at that. The "Bill of Rights" is not what people have been misled to believe, a list of rights you have and are given by government. In fact, they are the bill of laws that restrain the government from infringing on the natural God given rights every American already has by birth. Having a correct and accurate understanding of that carries a whole host of implications with it, e.g., it makes the tech companies' censorious autocratic behavior a violation of the natural God given human rights that the government is as prohibited from abridging as much as the tech companies that fall under it's jurisdiction. What we are facing, just to continue the example to further illustrate the point, is the tech companies are violating human rights through their censorious ways and they are violating the Constitution, the highest law of the land. If the USA were still a functional and healthy society any court would issue an immediate order to require all tech companies to not violate the human rights that the Constitution prohibits any inferior jurisdiction (everything falling under the Constitution, i,e., everything) from violating. The US Code even provides penalties for the violation of the Constitutional laws that the Government and the tech companies are persistently and even maliciously violating on a regular basis. It is rather clear that the far larger problem is the breakdown of fundamental rule of law (mutually agreed upon parameters for peace) and the replacement and encroachment of ever more rule of power (I will do whatever I want because I have the ability to make you). It will not end well one way or another if it is not fixed soon, and it does not look like those with the lust of power in their eyes have any intention of giving up anything.
- StillBored 6y ago
  For the cynics like myself. The lack of action on the part of the government to restrict and hold corporations to the same level as the government is supposedly held by the constitution seems intentional. Its a backdoor way around the constitutional restrictions. AKA the government can't restrict free speech or search your house everyday, but its going to allow everyone else to restrict and search your house for the same effect. Given the close ties between the leaders & .001%, the result is the same. It won't matter to you when you get charged with a crime you didn't commit whether the government was tracking your phone or the phone company reports your phone to the government. The result is the same.
SamBam 6y ago
So the government would force private corporations to let anyone say what they wanted on their sites? And this new sweeping government power would somehow.... restrict the government? Do you not see how that's contradictory? And what would it even look like? Would Hacker News no longer be allowed to have moderators?
ampdepolymerase 6y ago
A better way would be to update the definition of a public square to take into account the exponential scaling offered by digital services. Communication and commerce infrastructure should not be allowed to censor the moment they cross a critical point in scale.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

B-but what if people say mean things? :/

chaos986 6y ago
That's part of the Sophie's Choice. If we have private owned social media, then they will moderate according to public opinion. If we have us government run social media then we have no moderation at all because 1st amendment applies only to us government. So is it morally allowable to discuss <abhorrent topic> online? Should it be law to allow or disallow <abhorrent topic>? Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I think you central questions it the most important one, but the dichotomy between private and public is forced. A phone company is not forced to moderate the communication of its clients.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    I don't believe parent said they were forced, only that they would do it. And that makes sense, since their desire is to minimize damage to their brand. There is a simple solution to this if you don't like the way they behave: stop using their product, and recommend others do the same. Of course, your not using it doesn't prevent others from using it if they want to, but that's freedom of choice for you.
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      I am all for the free market, but when companies grow too dominant it no longer works, and we should not pretend otherwise. Just look at what happened to Parler.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        These companies hardly have a monopoly on internet communication, case in point: Parler is still around!
        zarkov99 6y ago
        One of us is misinformed . Parler is not around as a working social media website as of a few minutes ago.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        Alright, I jumped the gun there I guess. Last I heard they did find hosting elsewhere because, and this is the important point, none of the companies that shut them down had a monopoly on internet communication.
  - monkeywork 6y ago
    true but the analogy falls apart when you realize that 99% of phone conversations are peer to peer and between 2-4 people. social media posts can be a single person communicating with millions. the damage per unit of effort is much much lower for the unmoderated phone vs the unmoderated social
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      I agree, its an open problem. One one hand no one elected these companies as arbiters of what is good but on the other society at large is not equipped to handle the tsunami of speech that the internet enabled. Something has to be done.

thephyber 6y ago

From my perspective, you just flipped the purpose of 1A. Right now you have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever you like (protected classes aside). In your altered future, the government forces churches to allow atheists and rival religions to be allowed to speak at the church, despite the desires of the owners and congregation. It would effectively be compelled association.

treeman79 6y ago
Nonsense. Trouble is when government gives out monopolies, or supporting monopolies they like. Government currently closed side. Government has chosen atheism as its religion. Very hostile toward other religions. Everyone pays for government school, but want to a Christian education, then you have to pay twice.
- rizpanjwani 6y ago
  >Government has chosen atheism as its religion You're gonna want to provide proof of that claim.
- thephyber 6y ago
  I find the monopoly issue troubling, but I don’t understand how your proposal fixes it. Government schools aren’t atheist - they are secular. They simply aren’t allowed to teach Christianity because Jews and Muslims would have the same “I have to pay twice” complaint you mentioned. Also, what you say about Christian education is factually wrong. There are plenty of places in the USA where you can find a Christian Charter school or use school vouchers.
- root_axis 6y ago
  That's like saying virginity is a fetish. Atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of belief in a supernatural deity.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    It's belief in the lack of a supernatural deity. Subtle difference, as required by the topic.

frankfrankfrank 6y ago

I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic, but to your last point; I think it is overlooked (intentionally or not) that the Constitution is already a set of laws and the highest laws at that. The "Bill of Rights" is not what people have been misled to believe, a list of rights you have and are given by government. In fact, they are the bill of laws that restrain the government from infringing on the natural God given rights every American already has by birth. Having a correct and accurate understanding of that carries a whole host of implications with it, e.g., it makes the tech companies' censorious autocratic behavior a violation of the natural God given human rights that the government is as prohibited from abridging as much as the tech companies that fall under it's jurisdiction. What we are facing, just to continue the example to further illustrate the point, is the tech companies are violating human rights through their censorious ways and they are violating the Constitution, the highest law of the land. If the USA were still a functional and healthy society any court would issue an immediate order to require all tech companies to not violate the human rights that the Constitution prohibits any inferior jurisdiction (everything falling under the Constitution, i,e., everything) from violating. The US Code even provides penalties for the violation of the Constitutional laws that the Government and the tech companies are persistently and even maliciously violating on a regular basis. It is rather clear that the far larger problem is the breakdown of fundamental rule of law (mutually agreed upon parameters for peace) and the replacement and encroachment of ever more rule of power (I will do whatever I want because I have the ability to make you). It will not end well one way or another if it is not fixed soon, and it does not look like those with the lust of power in their eyes have any intention of giving up anything.

StillBored 6y ago
For the cynics like myself. The lack of action on the part of the government to restrict and hold corporations to the same level as the government is supposedly held by the constitution seems intentional. Its a backdoor way around the constitutional restrictions. AKA the government can't restrict free speech or search your house everyday, but its going to allow everyone else to restrict and search your house for the same effect. Given the close ties between the leaders & .001%, the result is the same. It won't matter to you when you get charged with a crime you didn't commit whether the government was tracking your phone or the phone company reports your phone to the government. The result is the same.

SamBam 6y ago

So the government would force private corporations to let anyone say what they wanted on their sites? And this new sweeping government power would somehow.... restrict the government? Do you not see how that's contradictory? And what would it even look like? Would Hacker News no longer be allowed to have moderators?

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

A better way would be to update the definition of a public square to take into account the exponential scaling offered by digital services. Communication and commerce infrastructure should not be allowed to censor the moment they cross a critical point in scale.