7 ms·

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)

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.
    - fallingknife 6y ago
      This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US.
      - xpe 6y ago
        > This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. You are missing my point. If you re-read my comment carefully, you will see that I explained in some detail why I'm often disappointed in the quality of discussion here. Only one part of my comments pertained to an undergraduate law class. I mentioned it not because I expect specialized knowledge of the law, but because I expect a certain amount of preparation before making strong claims. If you make a claim in a law class, you must be ready to support it. You are expected to know the history, arguments, and connection to the topic at hand. I think many software developers can relate to the need to explain their claims in a work setting. For example, if a developer suggests that an organization switch from technology X to Y, they should expect to be asked why. So, it is not very different from the expectations of a undergraduate law school class.
      - xpe 6y ago
        > The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but yes. At the risk of being too direct: I think we both know this is obvious. Do you have a finer point to make? > There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US. I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but I tend to agree. This does raise a follow-up question: To what degree do you think free speech should be protected in the US? How do you balance it against other principles? All of this said, I still stand by my commentary above, including (a) the unimpressive quality of argumentation and communication on HN; (b) a lack of understanding of how 1A and free speech interrelate; and (c) people here are not hopeless; they have the intellectual ability to do better -- if they only put a bit more effort into what they put out into the world. [1] Are you aware of the pitfalls of using "absolutely"? I recommend reading https://www.dailywritingtips.com/absolutely/ https://www.dailywritingtips.com/absolutely/
xpe 6y ago
> Government (in the US) regulates commercial speech all the time. Try broadcasting without an FCC license. Yes, I understand this. > Government also regulated privately owned public places. Try banning people of a particular race from your shopping mall and see what happens. ... So far, this is not an issue of speech. > ... Shopping mall operators aren’t free to absolutely limit speech however they like, even though private. Ok, I see where you were going with it... I'm not a legal expert, much less in this area, but after skimming over [1] and [2] this appears to be a complex area. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... [2]: https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out-free-speech-malls/ https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out...
xpe 6y ago
> I think it’s reasonable that government could treat social media companies as privately owned public spaces and add new regulations or requirements. Yes, this kind of argument seems to have a lot of traction right now, and I think there is precedent to build on, though -- again -- I'm far from an expert on it. > I don’t think this would mean a constitutional amendment to revise 1A... Agreed. > ... but using the free speech principle for these regulations makes sense. What do you mean by the "free speech principle"? I think 100 different people would probably have _at least_ 10 significantly different ideas of how free speech should work.
- prepend 6y ago
  > What do you mean by the "free speech principle” Good point, sorry, I said this like it was some simple concept that everyone understands in the same way. I mean it in the terms of what the UN calls freedom of expression and I think is based on the Ancient Greek origin. [0] That’s not absolute and there’s still debate, but, in my mind, it’s a philosophy that more communication on more topics is ultimately better for improving society and doing great things than less. An application that I think is relevant to this definition is Postel’s Law [1] to be liberal in what’s accepted and conservative in what’s said. And I think part of this is to not try to have a rules based approach of specific banned topics because it ends up being circular, eternal, and nonproductive. So any efforts to get specific rules around this seem to harm groups. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1] https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law

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.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US.
    - xpe 6y ago
      > This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. You are missing my point. If you re-read my comment carefully, you will see that I explained in some detail why I'm often disappointed in the quality of discussion here. Only one part of my comments pertained to an undergraduate law class. I mentioned it not because I expect specialized knowledge of the law, but because I expect a certain amount of preparation before making strong claims. If you make a claim in a law class, you must be ready to support it. You are expected to know the history, arguments, and connection to the topic at hand. I think many software developers can relate to the need to explain their claims in a work setting. For example, if a developer suggests that an organization switch from technology X to Y, they should expect to be asked why. So, it is not very different from the expectations of a undergraduate law school class.
    - xpe 6y ago
      > The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but yes. At the risk of being too direct: I think we both know this is obvious. Do you have a finer point to make? > There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US. I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but I tend to agree. This does raise a follow-up question: To what degree do you think free speech should be protected in the US? How do you balance it against other principles? All of this said, I still stand by my commentary above, including (a) the unimpressive quality of argumentation and communication on HN; (b) a lack of understanding of how 1A and free speech interrelate; and (c) people here are not hopeless; they have the intellectual ability to do better -- if they only put a bit more effort into what they put out into the world. [1] Are you aware of the pitfalls of using "absolutely"? I recommend reading https://www.dailywritingtips.com/absolutely/ https://www.dailywritingtips.com/absolutely/

xpe 6y ago

> Government (in the US) regulates commercial speech all the time. Try broadcasting without an FCC license. Yes, I understand this. > Government also regulated privately owned public places. Try banning people of a particular race from your shopping mall and see what happens. ... So far, this is not an issue of speech. > ... Shopping mall operators aren’t free to absolutely limit speech however they like, even though private. Ok, I see where you were going with it... I'm not a legal expert, much less in this area, but after skimming over [1] and [2] this appears to be a complex area. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... [2]: https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out-free-speech-malls/ https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out...

xpe 6y ago

> I think it’s reasonable that government could treat social media companies as privately owned public spaces and add new regulations or requirements. Yes, this kind of argument seems to have a lot of traction right now, and I think there is precedent to build on, though -- again -- I'm far from an expert on it. > I don’t think this would mean a constitutional amendment to revise 1A... Agreed. > ... but using the free speech principle for these regulations makes sense. What do you mean by the "free speech principle"? I think 100 different people would probably have _at least_ 10 significantly different ideas of how free speech should work.

prepend 6y ago
> What do you mean by the "free speech principle” Good point, sorry, I said this like it was some simple concept that everyone understands in the same way. I mean it in the terms of what the UN calls freedom of expression and I think is based on the Ancient Greek origin. [0] That’s not absolute and there’s still debate, but, in my mind, it’s a philosophy that more communication on more topics is ultimately better for improving society and doing great things than less. An application that I think is relevant to this definition is Postel’s Law [1] to be liberal in what’s accepted and conservative in what’s said. And I think part of this is to not try to have a rules based approach of specific banned topics because it ends up being circular, eternal, and nonproductive. So any efforts to get specific rules around this seem to harm groups. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1] https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law