4 ms·

Conversely, people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship At least on HN, I’ve never seen this, except as a totem.
danenania 4y ago
The principle that the first amendment is based on goes beyond government censorship. If large numbers of people are afraid to express their opinions because they fear being cut off from essential services, that's troublesome to anyone who believes in the principle of free speech, regardless of whether the source of the censorship is the government, private entities, or some murky conjunction of both. It's quite akin to opposing systematic racism from private businesses. You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society.
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  > You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society. I disagree. Historically, the only time people were refusing service to anyone, the people being refused service were black. Hippies were sometimes discriminated against. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but there are more than a few politicians/people who want to drag us back into the 1950s. In Colorado, such an act would be illegal. Which makes many people in today's polarized society extremely angry as they want to discriminate as much as possible. Rule 20.4 (page 18 of the PDF): > No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign that states or implies the following: > “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” > Such signage implies that management may rely upon unlawful discriminatory factors in determining access to a place of public accommodation and thus is prohibited https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVersionId=6008&fileName=3%20CCR%20708-1# https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVers... These are regulations issued to support the administration of the state government.

> people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship At least on HN, I’ve never seen this, except as a totem.

danenania 4y ago

The principle that the first amendment is based on goes beyond government censorship. If large numbers of people are afraid to express their opinions because they fear being cut off from essential services, that's troublesome to anyone who believes in the principle of free speech, regardless of whether the source of the censorship is the government, private entities, or some murky conjunction of both. It's quite akin to opposing systematic racism from private businesses. You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society.

Tangurena2 4y ago
> You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society. I disagree. Historically, the only time people were refusing service to anyone, the people being refused service were black. Hippies were sometimes discriminated against. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but there are more than a few politicians/people who want to drag us back into the 1950s. In Colorado, such an act would be illegal. Which makes many people in today's polarized society extremely angry as they want to discriminate as much as possible. Rule 20.4 (page 18 of the PDF): > No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign that states or implies the following: > “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” > Such signage implies that management may rely upon unlawful discriminatory factors in determining access to a place of public accommodation and thus is prohibited https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVersionId=6008&fileName=3%20CCR%20708-1# https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVers... These are regulations issued to support the administration of the state government.