5 ms·

Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.

by xpe 6y ago

Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Please pay particular attention to whom and what 1A applies.

alksdfkasdf123 6y ago
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Their opinion is relevant as long as it is enforced, whether or not you personally like it.
- artful-hacker 6y ago
  Considering they are the highest court in the USA, I would say their opinion is most relevant. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong morally or ethically, but their opinion is definitely relevant.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
prepend 6y ago
Who do you think doesn’t understand 1A? I’m not sure if you mean that the senators don’t understand. Or social media companies. Or us? Government (in the US) regulates commercial speech all the time. Try broadcasting without an FCC license. Government also regulated privately owned public places. Try banning people of a particular race from your shopping mall and see what happens. Shopping mall operators aren’t free to absolutely limit speech however they like, even though private. I think it’s reasonable that government could treat social media companies as privately owned public spaces and add new regulations or requirements. I don’t think this would mean a constitutional amendment to revise 1A, but using the free speech principle for these regulations makes sense. Of course, other countries have free speech laws and customs that have nothing to do with 1A.
- xpe 6y ago
  In my experience with HN, many people do not understand even the basics of 1A. Like many people, they have fundamental misconceptions, and they repeat them over and over. To take just one example on this particular comment page:, I wonder if the person writing this comment understands 1A: "While this looks good on paper, it would severely hinder free speech on these platforms if not already."
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    That comment makes no mention of the first amendment.
    - xpe 6y ago
      The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at. While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context. That comment very much relates to 1A, whether it uses a particular phrase or not, because it exists in this context of discussion about a bill talking about government regulation, which very much ties into 1A. Let me circle back. My experience here on HN after trying to have substantive 1A discussions is, frankly, disappointing. Perhaps I thought that people smart enough to program computers would be somewhat good at unpacking logical arguments based on a complex legal history. I've found mixed evidence for this. Instead, I often see: * Many people are simply unskilled communicators. * Many people are unnecessarily pedantic -- meaning they make a tiny irrelevant point but miss the huge issues in play and don't connect with others as people * Many people lack the tools or willingness to clarify, learn, and understand. * In terms of subject matter, the basics of 1A are not well understood. Instead, dogmatic assertions tend to be used. * FUD and slippery slope arguments are prevalent. * Balanced discussions of pros and cons are few and far between. * Even if the basics of 1A are understood, the authors often do not do a good job of formulating their questions in a way that signals their understanding and clarifies their question. These are unfortunate patterns I've seen. This is why I shared some basic information to ground the conversation. You may call me a critic, skeptic, or cynic. However, I think I'm being fairly accurate as to the quality of intellectual discussion around 1A on Hacker News. So much of the 'legal' conversation I see here on HN would be laughed out of even an undergraduate law class. We can and should do better. It is not for lack of intellectual reasoning ability. Other things seem to be getting in the way: dogma, fixation on narrow things to the detriment of the broader context, ego, unexamined rigid beliefs, a lack of historical awareness, insular worldview, etc.
hnlurker 6y ago
Theory and practice being quite different, I give you the precocious California youth from Pruneyard[0]. They won their 1A case against a private company that was a sort of platform for businesses (a shopping mall) not entirely unlike, in essence, the social media platforms of today, before SCOTUS 9-0. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
fallingknife 6y ago
Your quote makes it clear that "to whom and what 1A applies" is up for interpretation. While the wording of 1A specifically only prevents congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech, it has been extended by the courts to cover the entire federal government, and state governments in order to protect freedom of speech. There is no reason that in the future, 1A couldn't be extended further.

by xpe 6y ago

alksdfkasdf123 6y ago

SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Their opinion is relevant as long as it is enforced, whether or not you personally like it.
artful-hacker 6y ago
Considering they are the highest court in the USA, I would say their opinion is most relevant. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong morally or ethically, but their opinion is definitely relevant.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

prepend 6y ago

Who do you think doesn’t understand 1A? I’m not sure if you mean that the senators don’t understand. Or social media companies. Or us? Government (in the US) regulates commercial speech all the time. Try broadcasting without an FCC license. Government also regulated privately owned public places. Try banning people of a particular race from your shopping mall and see what happens. Shopping mall operators aren’t free to absolutely limit speech however they like, even though private. I think it’s reasonable that government could treat social media companies as privately owned public spaces and add new regulations or requirements. I don’t think this would mean a constitutional amendment to revise 1A, but using the free speech principle for these regulations makes sense. Of course, other countries have free speech laws and customs that have nothing to do with 1A.

xpe 6y ago
In my experience with HN, many people do not understand even the basics of 1A. Like many people, they have fundamental misconceptions, and they repeat them over and over. To take just one example on this particular comment page:, I wonder if the person writing this comment understands 1A: "While this looks good on paper, it would severely hinder free speech on these platforms if not already."
- fallingknife 6y ago
  That comment makes no mention of the first amendment.
  - xpe 6y ago
    The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at. While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context. That comment very much relates to 1A, whether it uses a particular phrase or not, because it exists in this context of discussion about a bill talking about government regulation, which very much ties into 1A. Let me circle back. My experience here on HN after trying to have substantive 1A discussions is, frankly, disappointing. Perhaps I thought that people smart enough to program computers would be somewhat good at unpacking logical arguments based on a complex legal history. I've found mixed evidence for this. Instead, I often see: * Many people are simply unskilled communicators. * Many people are unnecessarily pedantic -- meaning they make a tiny irrelevant point but miss the huge issues in play and don't connect with others as people * Many people lack the tools or willingness to clarify, learn, and understand. * In terms of subject matter, the basics of 1A are not well understood. Instead, dogmatic assertions tend to be used. * FUD and slippery slope arguments are prevalent. * Balanced discussions of pros and cons are few and far between. * Even if the basics of 1A are understood, the authors often do not do a good job of formulating their questions in a way that signals their understanding and clarifies their question. These are unfortunate patterns I've seen. This is why I shared some basic information to ground the conversation. You may call me a critic, skeptic, or cynic. However, I think I'm being fairly accurate as to the quality of intellectual discussion around 1A on Hacker News. So much of the 'legal' conversation I see here on HN would be laughed out of even an undergraduate law class. We can and should do better. It is not for lack of intellectual reasoning ability. Other things seem to be getting in the way: dogma, fixation on narrow things to the detriment of the broader context, ego, unexamined rigid beliefs, a lack of historical awareness, insular worldview, etc.

hnlurker 6y ago

Theory and practice being quite different, I give you the precocious California youth from Pruneyard[0]. They won their 1A case against a private company that was a sort of platform for businesses (a shopping mall) not entirely unlike, in essence, the social media platforms of today, before SCOTUS 9-0. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

fallingknife 6y ago

Your quote makes it clear that "to whom and what 1A applies" is up for interpretation. While the wording of 1A specifically only prevents congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech, it has been extended by the courts to cover the entire federal government, and state governments in order to protect freedom of speech. There is no reason that in the future, 1A couldn't be extended further.