2 ms·

> You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from in

by bhupy 6y ago

> You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. I'm asserting that organizations are no different from individuals in the eyes of the law. That's what we're talking about here. The law explicitly protects the freedom to associate, and has no point of view on what the size of a valid association should be. > you've seemingly made up your mind that desirable small-scale behavior implies desirable large-scale behavior by construction, and ignoring emergent behavior that arises out of scale. If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" based on the (very accessible) text of the Constitution and the relevant precedents. You might be correct that large-scale group behavior is somehow undesirable — I don't have an opinion about that and might even agree with you! My point is that it doesn't matter, under the law. A group of 10 is protected the same way a group of 1000 or 10,000,000 are. As it currently stands, if you or I were a part of an organization, neither you nor I have any entitlement over how that organization chooses to officially express itself to the public, unless that organization explicitly empowered us to be able to do so. If you think that the law should afford us the power to prevent the organization that we are a part of from expressing itself (even if we are in the minority within that organization) or if you think that the law should have carve-outs for different sized groups, that's a separate argument and discussion, and your best course of action there is to amend the US Constitution. We are currently talking about the legal merits of the Federal Legislature intimidating or hypothetically legislating news outlets for the content of their published speech under the status quo of the US Constitution.

mindslight 6y ago
> If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" When talking about ideals and values, the wider context is what should be. Explaining the current law and its current application is straightforward, and isn't particularly worthwhile without a larger point. I don't see where your comments disclaim that you're only describing the current legal interpretation as opposed to physical reality or how things ought to be, which means that you're advocating for the status quo. But sure, taking your comments as pure factual description of the legal situation - thanks for explaining the rationale leading to part of the problem of corporate entities becoming emergently unaccountable to us humans. If you'd care to discuss the problems with this, please go back and read my previous comments in their intended framework.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > which means that you're advocating for the status quo I’m actually not advocating for anything. I'm using this conversation to understand what you're advocating for so that I can form my own opinion about what I should believe. Looking back at this conversation, you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press, it's just that you find the implications of that to be undesirable; and you've made your best case for why that is. My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal by admitting on the public record that you don't think that we ought to have a "free press". That helps me not only understand the implications of your proposal but also establish that you actually do believe in what you're advocating for despite the implications (the honesty is refreshing). It also allows me to understand what it really means to deviate from the status quo. In that regard, this was an illuminating exchange. To the extent that I'm advocating for anything, it's that if you want to make any fundamental changes to the nature of press freedom in the US, the best way to do that is via the Constitutional Amendment process, and not by Legislative bullying. Even if one were to agree with the ends for which you are advocating (not saying that I do), I definitely disagree with the current means of achieving them.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    > you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press No, the status quo is to assert that we have a free press, as a tenet of our national beliefs. But looking at the actual governance of the US, much of the power structure resides outside of the de jure government. And that de facto government owns or supports most of the press. > My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal I've proposed nothing. I'm disputing assertions that backstop the status quo, chiefly that corporations should be viewed as plain groups of regular individuals coming together by voluntary association. Regarding speech, a straightforward proposal one could create from this is that corporations' speech would be regulated as a condition of their government-approved incorporation (and groups of individuals would be free to avoid this by not incorporating). But I'm not proposing this, because I think the motivation behind this problem-narrative is mostly power coalescing, and an inevitable reaction to the fracturing of institutional authority. Rather I'm making the general argument to point out that the interests of individuals are distinct from this battle of corporate versus government power - both "sides" are steamrollers to individually held rights. My own favored proposal is to move to Free p2p comms and leave both arms of the incumbent structure in the dust.

by bhupy 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

> If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" When talking about ideals and values, the wider context is what should be. Explaining the current law and its current application is straightforward, and isn't particularly worthwhile without a larger point. I don't see where your comments disclaim that you're only describing the current legal interpretation as opposed to physical reality or how things ought to be, which means that you're advocating for the status quo. But sure, taking your comments as pure factual description of the legal situation - thanks for explaining the rationale leading to part of the problem of corporate entities becoming emergently unaccountable to us humans. If you'd care to discuss the problems with this, please go back and read my previous comments in their intended framework.

bhupy 6y ago
> which means that you're advocating for the status quo I’m actually not advocating for anything. I'm using this conversation to understand what you're advocating for so that I can form my own opinion about what I should believe. Looking back at this conversation, you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press, it's just that you find the implications of that to be undesirable; and you've made your best case for why that is. My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal by admitting on the public record that you don't think that we ought to have a "free press". That helps me not only understand the implications of your proposal but also establish that you actually do believe in what you're advocating for despite the implications (the honesty is refreshing). It also allows me to understand what it really means to deviate from the status quo. In that regard, this was an illuminating exchange. To the extent that I'm advocating for anything, it's that if you want to make any fundamental changes to the nature of press freedom in the US, the best way to do that is via the Constitutional Amendment process, and not by Legislative bullying. Even if one were to agree with the ends for which you are advocating (not saying that I do), I definitely disagree with the current means of achieving them.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press No, the status quo is to assert that we have a free press, as a tenet of our national beliefs. But looking at the actual governance of the US, much of the power structure resides outside of the de jure government. And that de facto government owns or supports most of the press. > My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal I've proposed nothing. I'm disputing assertions that backstop the status quo, chiefly that corporations should be viewed as plain groups of regular individuals coming together by voluntary association. Regarding speech, a straightforward proposal one could create from this is that corporations' speech would be regulated as a condition of their government-approved incorporation (and groups of individuals would be free to avoid this by not incorporating). But I'm not proposing this, because I think the motivation behind this problem-narrative is mostly power coalescing, and an inevitable reaction to the fracturing of institutional authority. Rather I'm making the general argument to point out that the interests of individuals are distinct from this battle of corporate versus government power - both "sides" are steamrollers to individually held rights. My own favored proposal is to move to Free p2p comms and leave both arms of the incumbent structure in the dust.