4 ms·

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

by 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/
prepend 6y ago
I don’t know, usually when I talk and think about freedom of speech, I don’t mean 1A. I mean the principle of free speech that is the idea parent to 1A. I’ll frequently try to think about freedom of speech when trying to work out some community process or way to interact with people and if someone thought I was talking about 1A, I would feel bad for their confusion. I’m not sure how to prevent this in my speech as if I said “free speech* *independent and not specifically 1A” every time it would probably be more confusing.
- xpe 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying what you mean. I get it.

by xpe 6y ago

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/

prepend 6y ago

I don’t know, usually when I talk and think about freedom of speech, I don’t mean 1A. I mean the principle of free speech that is the idea parent to 1A. I’ll frequently try to think about freedom of speech when trying to work out some community process or way to interact with people and if someone thought I was talking about 1A, I would feel bad for their confusion. I’m not sure how to prevent this in my speech as if I said “free speech* *independent and not specifically 1A” every time it would probably be more confusing.

xpe 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying what you mean. I get it.