5 ms·

>should be facing years in prison and brutal fines for even suggesting I love the irony of this statement. You are such an advocate of free speech that you be

by slg 4y ago

>should be facing years in prison and brutal fines for even suggesting I love the irony of this statement. You are such an advocate of free speech that you believe suggesting alterations to free speech should be punishable by prison time. Free speech is so important that we must restrict speech to protect free speech.

goatcode 4y ago
"At this point any GOVERNMENT ACTOR, or private sector entity WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT..." You missed that part. The Bill of Rights is (or at least was) a list of things the Government can't do.
kelnos 4y ago
Isn't that just a variation on the paradox of tolerance, though? If we tolerate government entities pushing ideas to restrict the speech of citizens, we are going to lose our freedom of speech.
peteradio 4y ago
It's not ironic, you are twisting words. They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?
- slg 4y ago
  >They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. Who do you think makes up these "specific set of entities" if not "individual citizens"? >If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence? But OP didn't say the trigger for consequences would be the violation of civil rights. They said that the suggestion was enough to deserve a punishment. They want the speech punished, not action.
  - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
    Public servants, not individual citizens. The individual citizens are incidental and not important. DHS is a public institution staffed by government agents acting as public servants, not as individual citizens.
    - slg 4y ago
      OP specifically referenced this applying to both government agents and private entities.
      - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        OP only mentioned private entities conspiring with the government to violate the constitutional civil right to free speech. Context.
        slg 4y ago
        Are you suggesting that I as an individual lose rights if my employer starts working with the government?
        pessimizer 4y ago
        Of course you do. You probably lost rights before then if you signed an employment contract, and your employer lost rights when they started working with the government. You lost rights the first time you registered with paypal or facebook (forced arbitration clauses.) You lost rights when you signed your lease. I don't understand what's supposed to be shocking here. There's this phrasing that seems to indicate that this is an absurd situation rather than a commonplace one.
        MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        Yes, obviously. That's how it works.
        4y ago
akira2501 4y ago
When you become a government actor you swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. In your official capacity, it does seem conflicted to then engage in behavior that suggests limitation of the rights granted by the constitution. As a private citizen, do what you want, but I think this is understood by the context of the OP.
- slg 4y ago
  I can't say I agree with that logic. Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution? It seems imperative that government officials need to be able to openly discuss the meaning of laws and whether those laws are appropriate without fear of punishment for that discussion.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution? Yes. Just because you happen to agree with them is not an excuse. The constitution belongs to the States and is ratified solely by them, not the Federal government. A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so. > It seems imperative that government officials It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.
    - slg 4y ago
      >A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so. I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison. >It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters. How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means? Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?
wang_li 4y ago
It's already the law, it would just be better if the higher penalties applied to all civil rights violations and not just those that involve physical assault. The problem is that the DOJ is heavily politicized and won't proceed with charges. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245
- slg 4y ago
  Discussing the definition of specific rights is not the same thing as actively depriving people of those rights. You are equating speech and debate with action.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>I love the irony of this statement. How is it irony? The first amendment: >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. Has only been expanded by the courts to apply to all levels and branches of government, and they're not allowed to outsource (14thS1) it and very clearly says that the government cannot abridge speech. Which is exactly what DHS was conspiring to do with big tech. People get free speech. The government does get a say in the matter. People who are acting members of the government being held accountable for violation of the 1st amendment is a great way to illustrate the difference between free speech and the first amendment. If this were only big tech/other companies the first amendment wouldn't apply and your comment would have merit, but with the DHS involved this is just wildly unconstitional and there's nothing ironic about it.
- slg 4y ago
  The government already restricts speech. Libel is an obvious example. We therefore need to debate what the concept of free speech actually means and what the practical implications of the 1st Amendment are because they clearly don't mean that speech is completely unrestricted. OP is suggesting that anyone who comes to that debate with definitions that are more restrictive than OPs should end up in prison. How is that not inherently a restriction on the speech that one can make about free speech?
pessimizer 4y ago
This is such a bad comment. Nobody is suggesting free speech for government employees during the performance of their jobs. Would you think it was ironic that somebody who supported the 1st Amendment would object to the FBI writing letters to MLK convincing him to kill himself? Would that be something you loved, or not?

by slg 4y ago

goatcode 4y ago

"At this point any GOVERNMENT ACTOR, or private sector entity WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT..." You missed that part. The Bill of Rights is (or at least was) a list of things the Government can't do.

kelnos 4y ago

Isn't that just a variation on the paradox of tolerance, though? If we tolerate government entities pushing ideas to restrict the speech of citizens, we are going to lose our freedom of speech.

peteradio 4y ago

It's not ironic, you are twisting words. They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?

slg 4y ago
>They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. Who do you think makes up these "specific set of entities" if not "individual citizens"? >If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence? But OP didn't say the trigger for consequences would be the violation of civil rights. They said that the suggestion was enough to deserve a punishment. They want the speech punished, not action.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  Public servants, not individual citizens. The individual citizens are incidental and not important. DHS is a public institution staffed by government agents acting as public servants, not as individual citizens.
  - slg 4y ago
    OP specifically referenced this applying to both government agents and private entities.
    - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
      OP only mentioned private entities conspiring with the government to violate the constitutional civil right to free speech. Context.
      - slg 4y ago
        Are you suggesting that I as an individual lose rights if my employer starts working with the government?
        pessimizer 4y ago
        Of course you do. You probably lost rights before then if you signed an employment contract, and your employer lost rights when they started working with the government. You lost rights the first time you registered with paypal or facebook (forced arbitration clauses.) You lost rights when you signed your lease. I don't understand what's supposed to be shocking here. There's this phrasing that seems to indicate that this is an absurd situation rather than a commonplace one.
        MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        Yes, obviously. That's how it works.
        4y ago

akira2501 4y ago

When you become a government actor you swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. In your official capacity, it does seem conflicted to then engage in behavior that suggests limitation of the rights granted by the constitution. As a private citizen, do what you want, but I think this is understood by the context of the OP.

slg 4y ago
I can't say I agree with that logic. Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution? It seems imperative that government officials need to be able to openly discuss the meaning of laws and whether those laws are appropriate without fear of punishment for that discussion.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution? Yes. Just because you happen to agree with them is not an excuse. The constitution belongs to the States and is ratified solely by them, not the Federal government. A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so. > It seems imperative that government officials It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.
  - slg 4y ago
    >A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so. I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison. >It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters. How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means? Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?

wang_li 4y ago

It's already the law, it would just be better if the higher penalties applied to all civil rights violations and not just those that involve physical assault. The problem is that the DOJ is heavily politicized and won't proceed with charges. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245

slg 4y ago
Discussing the definition of specific rights is not the same thing as actively depriving people of those rights. You are equating speech and debate with action.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

>I love the irony of this statement. How is it irony? The first amendment: >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. Has only been expanded by the courts to apply to all levels and branches of government, and they're not allowed to outsource (14thS1) it and very clearly says that the government cannot abridge speech. Which is exactly what DHS was conspiring to do with big tech. People get free speech. The government does get a say in the matter. People who are acting members of the government being held accountable for violation of the 1st amendment is a great way to illustrate the difference between free speech and the first amendment. If this were only big tech/other companies the first amendment wouldn't apply and your comment would have merit, but with the DHS involved this is just wildly unconstitional and there's nothing ironic about it.

slg 4y ago
The government already restricts speech. Libel is an obvious example. We therefore need to debate what the concept of free speech actually means and what the practical implications of the 1st Amendment are because they clearly don't mean that speech is completely unrestricted. OP is suggesting that anyone who comes to that debate with definitions that are more restrictive than OPs should end up in prison. How is that not inherently a restriction on the speech that one can make about free speech?

pessimizer 4y ago

This is such a bad comment. Nobody is suggesting free speech for government employees during the performance of their jobs. Would you think it was ironic that somebody who supported the 1st Amendment would object to the FBI writing letters to MLK convincing him to kill himself? Would that be something you loved, or not?