13 ms·
as a foreigner (in terms of the US), I've never understood how these gag orders are compatible with the First Amendment often there's posts on HN about how the
by blibble 3y ago
as a foreigner (in terms of the US), I've never understood how these gag orders are compatible with the First Amendment
often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech
but then apparently the police (FBI) can restrict the free speech of Americans without any court involvement at all?
I really don't understand
- komon 3y agoWell, due process is a right co-equal to free speech, so which rights override which others in which circumstances will come down to legal precedent. My understanding is that the FBI or other non-judicial body cannot unilaterally issue a gag order. Subpoenas and gag orders related to them are granted by judges. (Which isn't to say that the relationship between the judicial branch and law enforcement bodies is always pure and equal)
- jakeinspace 3y agoGag orders do require a court, just not a jury or an open hearing. I agree that they should be unconstitutional.
- Loquebantur 3y agoLook at this thread. People engage in childish fantasies featuring themselves in imaginary subversive behavior. It's unresolvable cognitive dissonance leading to repressing and reinterpreting the cause.
- nceqs3 3y agoYou seem to be misunderstanding the First Amendment. CSMA, classified information, defamation, copyright, etc. are all not permitted under the first amendment. Not to mention that gag orders are approved by a court and can be appealed.
- blibble 3y ago> 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. seems pretty clear to me, at least for gag orders less so for the other stuff you mentioned (could you argue pirated Disney movies are speech? probably not)
- dragontamer 3y agoAnd the writers of the 1st Amendment went on to pass the Sedition act of 1798. > That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Welcome to America. Our laws contradict each other and its all about politics. The Supreme Court figures out where the line is drawn and what is, or isn't, legal according to the Constitution. With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at Libel, Slander, "Fire in a Crowded Theater", pornography, and many other restrictions upon "free speech". Gag orders included.
- RobotToaster 3y ago>"Fire in a Crowded Theater" That one's apparently a myth. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...
- fijiaarone 3y agoThe first amendment must be a lot longer than I thought.
- account42 3y agoCopyright is something the first amendmend explicitly carves out exactly because it is incompatible with free speech.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- make3 3y agothe fbi is overseen by elected officials, and by laws that were voted for it. it's not perfect but that still makes a huge difference.
- bboygravity 3y agoThat explains the whole Trump Russia ties investigation by the FBI I guess? Doesn't seem to healthy for any nation that is supposedly democratic?
- wolverine876 3y agoCivil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy?
- blibble 3y ago> I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy? here's one from earlier in the week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 they're pretty common, here's another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773
- wolverine876 3y agoIn the GGP you wrote, > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I don't see that in the comments you cite - nothing related to totaliterianism, unrestricted free speech, or comparison to the US. The comments just look like critiques of some laws related to speech, similar to critiques of US laws. Maybe I misunderstand.
- Freedom2 3y agoI don't have a source handy, I can find one later if you desire. During Melbourne's lockdowns there was consistent criticism from US based commenters about the lack of freedoms in Australia. edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 (this entire comment section, probably: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- patrick451 3y agoThey aren't compatible with the first amendment. But at this point, those rights are a joke and and all three branches of our government regard the constitution as toilet paper.
- xupybd 3y agoI don't like these gag orders but I can see times when they are needed. Each person has a right to a fair trial. So the courts sometimes have to suppress information from the public to avoid potential jurors seeing information about the case. They must only judge guilt based on what they hear in court not in the media.
- brigandish 3y agoSo the whole of society must be kept in the dark? No, jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court, and those looking for unwarranted (sadly, not literally) secrecy should look for other ways to continue their insidious conspiracies against people.
- xupybd 3y ago>jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court I don't know if humans are able to ignore evidence they have heard outside of court. We are not good at only including one set of information when making judgements.
- brigandish 3y agoRight, but you're advocating keeping the whole of society in the dark versus relying on twelve people to be fair, which is what they're told to do. I would say that the latter is better than the former because of the immense harm keeping the whole of society in the dark. It's a numbers game.
- xupybd 3y agoAll of society benefits from the right to a fair trial. But, most of the time gag orders are abused and no one benefits.
- brigandish 3y agoThe way I propose does not preclude a fair trial. The way you propose (i.e. the status quo) precludes an informed electorate and introduces perverse incentives for those in power.
- yrnameer 3y agoThere are plenty of laws that aren't compatible with our constitution. Judges will laugh a lawyer out of the courtroom who uses constitutional arguments, and your case will go nowhere.
- sibramalisi 3y agoAre you still like first amendement don't you number @_sib_ra10
- callalex 3y agoOur rights are written in a document. The government is made up of people. There can be a large disconnect between the two.
- fijiaarone 3y agoIt’s voluntary. The only way they can shut you up if you don’t agree to is to kill you.
- smsm42 3y agoYes, they can. They also can perform illegal searches on Americans, and routinely do. To the tune of hundreds thousands times a year: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-da... There is absolutely no consequences to anybody for this. If you're going to ask how US citizens tolerate such blatant abuse, and why they don't do something about it - that's a very good question. Please get back to me if you find any answer to it.
- vintermann 3y agoYes, the thing people gloss over is that laws are only as good as the people ruling on them, and not only is the process of selecting supreme court judges in the US a farce, one of them is openly defending his own corruption now. In such cases, a well written, clear law on freedom of speech only increases the distance between what people think they have, and what they actually have.
- modriano 3y agoWell, the founding fathers intended for the First Amendment to apply only to acts of Congress, and maybe not even then (for example, just six years after ratifying the Bill of Rights, founding father and second President John Adams signed the Sedition act [0], which criminalized false and malicious statements against the government). It took over 125 years before Supreme Courts started reinterpreting the First Amendment to apply to some government actions that weren't acts of Congress, but there are still tons of situations where regular people can restrict free speech. For example, in Frederick v. Morse, while the Olympic torch was running through some town in Alaska, a public high school student unfurled a banner that read "bong hits 4 Jesus". Despite this not being on school grounds and the student not going to school that day, the school suspended him explicitly because of the speech on his banner, but the SC said that's fine. (Sidenote: I wouldn't look to the SC for coherent reasoning; the SC has been an absolute dumpster fire for all but the Warren court and parts of FDR's court. Hell, three current Justices (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett) worked on George W Bush's legal team in the democracy-negating Bush v. Gore case) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
- kfrzcode 3y agoFree speech does not equate to unlimited absolution from consequence
- radarsat1 3y ago> but then apparently the police (FBI) can restrict the free speech of Americans without any court involvement at all? are you sure about this? As far as I understand "gag orders" can only come from a judge. Of course the FBI could request strongly that you not talk about something but I'm not sure it would hold legal weight.
- absurddoctor 3y agoHaving been on the receiving end a bit, the gag orders don't come from the FBI directly. The FBI can ask you not to say anything, but you can ignore that without any legal repercussions. Any gag order that matters is issued by a judge.
- patmorgan23 3y agoThey do need a court. Subpoenas are issued and overseen by the judicial system, any gay order has to be signed by a judge. The FBI can't unilaterally censor you.