3 ms·

Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the na

Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives - in addition to the power they already have been wielding through owning politicians using lobbyists and having protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own in the social media companies. That’s what has been happening in the media space - Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for “fact checks”.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. I am not speaking of first amendment of individuals which I think is also under attack by the same group of people, look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The idea that people who lived in a time of tarring-and-feathering people couldn't anticipate cancel culture is a bit silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches. Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association. edit: Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers participating themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Not to mention fairly regular extrajudicial lynchings. The rule of law is respected far more today than it was in the 1770s.
    - njarboe 5y ago
      What I find inspiring about the Boston massacre is that founding father, John Adams, defended the British soldiers involved in it and doing so did not prevent him from becoming president in the future. The values of the electorate were quite a bit different in those days and really are knowing about and emulating the better parts.
    - kodah 5y ago
      > Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association Personally, I don't care that it's age old. It's still not okay, and I don't care whether it's better or worse in modern times. I'm not even sure how far outside of propaganda some of this stuff falls, which ironically has the opposite reception from the public.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        It's not OK to choose not to hang out with someone because you've heard they did something shitty?
        kodah 5y ago
        You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        I can’t use my free speech to encourage someone to make the same choice? Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.
  - munificent 5y ago
    > My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. That sounds to me like a problem with the existence of billionaire oligarchs and not a problem with the first amendment.
  - 8note 5y ago
    the founding fathers were those oligarchs for their time
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. The founders largely were oligarchs, heirs of oligarchs, or married into the families of oligarchs,and certainly were not people to whom the idea of someone, or some group, within that class investing heavily in media to promote their political ideas would be surprising. > look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like. Both before and after independence, political cancel culture in the early US involved much more forceful, and often permanent and total, cancellation than what is complained about today.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - austhrow743 5y ago
    That journalists and individuals have separate first amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution is a lie created by the same mainstream media you’ve lost faith in.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.

mercy_dude 5y ago
My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. I am not speaking of first amendment of individuals which I think is also under attack by the same group of people, look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The idea that people who lived in a time of tarring-and-feathering people couldn't anticipate cancel culture is a bit silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches. Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association. edit: Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers participating themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Not to mention fairly regular extrajudicial lynchings. The rule of law is respected far more today than it was in the 1770s.
  - njarboe 5y ago
    What I find inspiring about the Boston massacre is that founding father, John Adams, defended the British soldiers involved in it and doing so did not prevent him from becoming president in the future. The values of the electorate were quite a bit different in those days and really are knowing about and emulating the better parts.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association Personally, I don't care that it's age old. It's still not okay, and I don't care whether it's better or worse in modern times. I'm not even sure how far outside of propaganda some of this stuff falls, which ironically has the opposite reception from the public.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It's not OK to choose not to hang out with someone because you've heard they did something shitty?
      - kodah 5y ago
        You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        I can’t use my free speech to encourage someone to make the same choice? Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.
- munificent 5y ago
  > My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. That sounds to me like a problem with the existence of billionaire oligarchs and not a problem with the first amendment.
- 8note 5y ago
  the founding fathers were those oligarchs for their time
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media and newspapers to promote views favouring their narratives. The founders largely were oligarchs, heirs of oligarchs, or married into the families of oligarchs,and certainly were not people to whom the idea of someone, or some group, within that class investing heavily in media to promote their political ideas would be surprising. > look how the mainstream media would love to cancel certain people they don’t like. Both before and after independence, political cancel culture in the early US involved much more forceful, and often permanent and total, cancellation than what is complained about today.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- austhrow743 5y ago
  That journalists and individuals have separate first amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution is a lie created by the same mainstream media you’ve lost faith in.