3 ms·
This is an issue of reading comprehension. The quoted sentence says that GitHub and Green each separately have Constitutional rights. It does not imply a compul
by snowwrestler 4y ago
This is an issue of reading comprehension. The quoted sentence says that GitHub and Green each separately have Constitutional rights. It does not imply a compulsory relationship between Green and GitHub.
Green has a Constitutional right to publish anywhere, and GitHub is somewhere, so he has a Constitutional right to publish on GitHub. That does not mean the Constitution compels GitHub, it simply means the Constitution does not restrict Green.
- yarg 4y ago> so he has a Constitutional right to publish on GitHub. No he doesn't, he's merely allowed to do what Github lets him do. Anyway, this is getting rather silly, so I'll leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ.
- snowwrestler 4y agoYour statement does not disagree with my statement. Green’s rights do not create a duty on GitHub. You’re struggling with basic concepts. Constitutional rights in general do not compel private actions; they restrict government powers.
- yarg 4y agoA right from one perspective is a constraint from another. If I have the right to life, there is a constraint prohibiting others from taking it from me. Likewise, if I have the right to publish on Github, then Github does not have the right to stop me. Seems to me that you're the one struggling with basic comprehension.
- omniglottal 4y agoGithub does not have the right to forbid publishing _at the government's request_. They may freely choose not to publish, but would be an accomplice to a crime if this is done for the government.