3 ms·

How do you square this circle with the first amendment?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> square this circle with the first amendment It's authorizing the President to ban certain classes of transactions. Not behavior let alone speech.
- wincy 4y ago
  Right he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares!” This is mind boggling that every single person on HN isn’t terrified of this. Surely most of us were around in the 2000s when the Bush Administration demonized people who spoke against the war? Aren’t we the same people who were railing against censorship then? What HAPPENED to that community I grew up with that wouldn’t put up with censorship, who held free speech as the backbone of democracy? Where are all of those people now? I have a few hunches, and I’m not sure I’d like to know the answer.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares Let’s be real. Nobody is closing anything down. This is a bizarre game of brinksmanship between D.C. and Beijing that ends in one place: divestiture. The only reason it’s getting so much attention is because the object of concern is a social media property, not e.g. a port asset or power plant.
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  Do you think that the President banning people to sell paper, ink, electricity and internet access to the NYTimes has any chance to fly as not violating the 1A? I mean they can shout from the windows and write on the glass windows with lipstick.
  - paxys 4y ago
    A better analogy is – is it a violation of the first amendment if the government intercepts and holds a shipment of newspapers sent from China at customs?
  - timeon 4y ago
    > President banning people to sell paper, ink Is this what is happening? This seems to me like free speech absurdism.
boshalfoshal 4y ago
Theres a fair precedent if you use the clear and present danger doctrine. Not that I agree that it is actually an immediate threat to US national security, but anti-TikTok pundits claim it is and can spin their argument that way. Its not unreasonable following that premise.

> square this circle with the first amendment It's authorizing the President to ban certain classes of transactions. Not behavior let alone speech.

wincy 4y ago
Right he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares!” This is mind boggling that every single person on HN isn’t terrified of this. Surely most of us were around in the 2000s when the Bush Administration demonized people who spoke against the war? Aren’t we the same people who were railing against censorship then? What HAPPENED to that community I grew up with that wouldn’t put up with censorship, who held free speech as the backbone of democracy? Where are all of those people now? I have a few hunches, and I’m not sure I’d like to know the answer.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares Let’s be real. Nobody is closing anything down. This is a bizarre game of brinksmanship between D.C. and Beijing that ends in one place: divestiture. The only reason it’s getting so much attention is because the object of concern is a social media property, not e.g. a port asset or power plant.
ReptileMan 4y ago
Do you think that the President banning people to sell paper, ink, electricity and internet access to the NYTimes has any chance to fly as not violating the 1A? I mean they can shout from the windows and write on the glass windows with lipstick.
- paxys 4y ago
  A better analogy is – is it a violation of the first amendment if the government intercepts and holds a shipment of newspapers sent from China at customs?
- timeon 4y ago
  > President banning people to sell paper, ink Is this what is happening? This seems to me like free speech absurdism.

boshalfoshal 4y ago

Theres a fair precedent if you use the clear and present danger doctrine. Not that I agree that it is actually an immediate threat to US national security, but anti-TikTok pundits claim it is and can spin their argument that way. Its not unreasonable following that premise.