4 ms·

I'll bite, I down voted because you seem excited about the inevitable clash between laws that are almost certainly unconstitutional/ill conceived/partisan, and

I'll bite, I down voted because you seem excited about the inevitable clash between laws that are almost certainly unconstitutional/ill conceived/partisan, and social media companies. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, at best, to try and enact and enforce those laws. Also, it's going to open a gnarly can of worms when someone weaponizes them by running for office to get themselves unbanned from a platform.

AzzieElbab 5y ago
One could argue that the spirit of the first amendment is being violated given a) digital speech is the most(only) form of speech that matters today, and b) digital speech is monopolized. However, to me personally, the most interesting aspect of this whole thing is what will happen next
- jcranmer 5y ago
  It is instructive to remember that the first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law"
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    IMHO, the first five words make no sense without rest of the sentence. It is like Knuth quote about "root of all evil". "The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      The full text is: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Note that "abridging the freedom of speech" is preceded by "or", so consequently, "Congress shall make no law" also must apply to "abridging the freedom of speech" or else the sentence makes no grammatical sense. To interpret it as you do would be to violate one of the canons of construction.
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        I pasted it from the US Congress site. Anyway, no matter how you cut it, it does not say Congress shall outsource all freedom of speech decisions to a private monopoly and its highly partisan oversight board.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

AzzieElbab 5y ago

One could argue that the spirit of the first amendment is being violated given a) digital speech is the most(only) form of speech that matters today, and b) digital speech is monopolized. However, to me personally, the most interesting aspect of this whole thing is what will happen next

jcranmer 5y ago
It is instructive to remember that the first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law"
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  IMHO, the first five words make no sense without rest of the sentence. It is like Knuth quote about "root of all evil". "The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    The full text is: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Note that "abridging the freedom of speech" is preceded by "or", so consequently, "Congress shall make no law" also must apply to "abridging the freedom of speech" or else the sentence makes no grammatical sense. To interpret it as you do would be to violate one of the canons of construction.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      I pasted it from the US Congress site. Anyway, no matter how you cut it, it does not say Congress shall outsource all freedom of speech decisions to a private monopoly and its highly partisan oversight board.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]