3 ms·

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 exis

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

> 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/