3 ms·

No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to

No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect our core values. Essentially, the first amendment is the floor, not the ceiling. People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. Big tech companies should be forced to enshrine freedom of speech into their platforms, or face still government sanctions.

krapp 4y ago
I feel like this is going to be impossible but I'm going to try one more time. The reason the First Amendment denies Congress the right to abridge speech is that freedom of speech implicitly allows freedom from speech, just as the right to assembly implicitly allows the right not to assemble and freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. The First Amendment is written the way it is to protect the right of the people, and of private enterprise, to moderate speech on their property. Their doing so isn't a violation of freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech. >People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. First, no one here is actually making that argument. Second, it baffles me how you can type that and not realize that allowing congress to restrict our speech more than they're allowed to makes our speech less free. And third, I have to echo the sentiment of sascha_sl's comment here. It's telling that this outrage only ever comes out on behalf of people with a specific political bent. None of Hacker News' free speech advocates ever go to bat for LGBT or black or leftist content that gets unfairly demonetized or banned, which despite the narrative happens all the time. Only ever for the right-wingers, racists and assholes, and only after Trump's white supremacist fringe base started getting banned en masse. This isn't about freedom of speech, and never has been. It's about one political ideology wanting the government to coerce private platforms into publishing their propaganda against their will.
cloudsec9 4y ago
> Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect [...] 1st Amendment: Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW [...] Curious, isn't it? I'm not sure why you think that Congress, which is likely near the MOST PARTISAN it's ever been, will responsibly and reasonably use this "force" to ensure viewpoint neutrality, instead of say, amplifying the voices that support their position. Also, part of the 1st Amendment is allowing people to associate (or not) with each other. As long as you aren't discriminating for an illegal purpose, you can make whatever rules you want. If you don't like the "big tech" rules, don't participate. But if you break their rules, they can kick you out. The first amendment means that the GOVERNMENT can't silence jerks, but is ALSO means that people who don't want to hear jerks don't have to listen.

krapp 4y ago

I feel like this is going to be impossible but I'm going to try one more time. The reason the First Amendment denies Congress the right to abridge speech is that freedom of speech implicitly allows freedom from speech, just as the right to assembly implicitly allows the right not to assemble and freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. The First Amendment is written the way it is to protect the right of the people, and of private enterprise, to moderate speech on their property. Their doing so isn't a violation of freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech. >People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. First, no one here is actually making that argument. Second, it baffles me how you can type that and not realize that allowing congress to restrict our speech more than they're allowed to makes our speech less free. And third, I have to echo the sentiment of sascha_sl's comment here. It's telling that this outrage only ever comes out on behalf of people with a specific political bent. None of Hacker News' free speech advocates ever go to bat for LGBT or black or leftist content that gets unfairly demonetized or banned, which despite the narrative happens all the time. Only ever for the right-wingers, racists and assholes, and only after Trump's white supremacist fringe base started getting banned en masse. This isn't about freedom of speech, and never has been. It's about one political ideology wanting the government to coerce private platforms into publishing their propaganda against their will.

cloudsec9 4y ago

> Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect [...] 1st Amendment: Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW [...] Curious, isn't it? I'm not sure why you think that Congress, which is likely near the MOST PARTISAN it's ever been, will responsibly and reasonably use this "force" to ensure viewpoint neutrality, instead of say, amplifying the voices that support their position. Also, part of the 1st Amendment is allowing people to associate (or not) with each other. As long as you aren't discriminating for an illegal purpose, you can make whatever rules you want. If you don't like the "big tech" rules, don't participate. But if you break their rules, they can kick you out. The first amendment means that the GOVERNMENT can't silence jerks, but is ALSO means that people who don't want to hear jerks don't have to listen.