4 ms·

Governor Newsom in California is proposing a constitutional amendment that radically limits the absolutism of the Second Amendment. It's high time we do the sam

Governor Newsom in California is proposing a constitutional amendment that radically limits the absolutism of the Second Amendment. It's high time we do the same for the First Amendment -- specifically a money-is-not-speech amendment and an amendment criminalizing hate speech. Free speech absolutism got us Kiwi Farms, Gamergate, and Trump and put marginalized folks at risk of harassment, injury, and death. (One nice side effect of these amendments is the Republican Party may well shrivel up and disappear, as moneyspeech and hate speech are the Republicans' stock in trade. Every plank and policy in their platform is traceable back to one of those two. The Democrats have an enormous moneyspeech problem too but there at least exist principled Democrats willing to do the right thing without input from corporate masters.) One of the things the Germans realized is that if you want to enjoy a functioning democracy, you must silence people who hold antidemocratic views well before they become too powerful to be stopped. Accordingly you face criminal charges in Germany for spreading Nazi propaganda. Most of the freest, most democratic nations in the world are like this. Why isn't the USA? Hint: the USA is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy of the power elite, formed by the power elite for that very purpose. It's functioning as designed, and radical rethought of the Constitution is well past due.

hysterix 3y ago
[flagged]
karaterobot 3y ago
I wasn't aware that a state Governor could propose an amendment at the federal level, that would be quite a move on his part. Is it possible it's just a PR stunt?
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  He hasn't proposed an amendment, he's proposed proposing an amendment. An actual proposal would require 2/3 approval by either Congress (both houses) or states' legislatures.
- bitwize 3y ago
  It's a (likely to pass) bill before the California legislature to call for a state constitutional convention. If 2/3 of the states pass such a measure, a convention may be called after which 3/4 of the states may ratify the proposed amendment. It's a means of amendment specified in Article V of the Constitution that can be undertaken without involving the federal Congress.
samanator 3y ago
"First they came for the Communists... Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me" - Martin Niemöller One man's hate speech is another man's freedom of expression. Who will arbitrate the definition of hate speech? What if you don't agree with their definition? What if saying you don't agree with their definition also gets labeled as hate speech by the arbitrator? It's a slippery slope...
- bitwize 3y ago
  > "First they came for the Communists... Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me" - Martin Niemöller And the reason why there hasn't been a repeat of that in 80 years is because now they come for the Nazis. Somehow, the slope hasn't been slippery enough that the Germans had fallen down it again in all that time. Again, responsible censorship, including arbitrating what is and isn't hate speech is something that's been successfully done in functioning democracies for decades now. Only in the USA does this seem to be a great big mystery.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    [flagged]
HnAug23tw 3y ago
[flagged]
Vaslo 3y ago
You lost everybody at Gavin Newson. Chatgpt probably could have wrote the rest of your rant. You are basically one of the typical “free speech as long as it furthers my left wing views otherwise Nazi Nazi Nazi” Lol I swear to God I only read the first two paragraphs before I wrote the above and then I just skimmed the rest of your comment and you quoted Nazi Germany!!!! To be clear, as long as there are people like you, they’ll always be people like me to make sure you don’t stay in power long.
Georgelemental 3y ago
> criminalizing hate speech Hmm, this comment by bitwise seems really hateful against free speech protections. I propose that we throw them in jail to punish them for their hatred. /s > One of the things the Germans realized is that if you want to enjoy a functioning democracy, you must silence people who hold antidemocratic views well before they become too powerful to be stopped. No, you must get your act together and fix your country's problems so that duplicitous demagogues don't have a receptive audience of depesperate people who have lost trust in the system. Nazism would never have taken over Germany if it wasn't for the hyperinflation and economic disaster of the Weimar years, the Soviets would never have won in Russia if the Czars hadn't impoverished the Russian people with serfdom and war, Putin would not be in power today if Yeltsin hadn't let the oligarchs loot the Russian people in the 90s… After WWII, the US invested a fortune through the Marshall plan to rebuild Western Europe economically, that was the most impactful measure for stopping extremism. > Hint: the USA is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy of the power elite, formed by the power elite for that very purpose. The USA is a constitutional federal republic. It's far from perfect, but it is the freest, most prosperous, most technolgically advanced, and most socially mobile nation of comparable size in history. I wasn't born here, but I live here now and have no plans of leaving; when you know what the real oligarchies are like, it gives you some perspective. But, let's assume for the more moment that you are correct, and that the US really is run entirely by evil power-hungry oligarchs. Why in the world would you want to give them more power? Do you support the oligarchs?
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
In a real democracy my political opponents would lose all of their elections and would be forbidden from expressing the beliefs I disagree with. Instead we're stuck with whatever you call it when people convince each other to vote for the wrong people. It's time to ban antidemocratic views.
linksnapzz 3y ago
>Governor Newsom in California is proposing a constitutional amendment that radically limits the absolutism of the Second Amendment. Governor Newsom ought to consider the removal of planks from his own eye, ere looking to remove the splinters from other's eyes. >It's high time we do the same for the First Amendment -- specifically a money-is-not-speech amendment and an amendment criminalizing hate speech. Who gets to make the decision as to what speech is which? > Free speech absolutism got us Kiwi Farms, Gamergate, and Trump Those are all meh, with but a few moments of hilarity; but as Free Speech also gave us the collected works of Monty Python && all of Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy's comedy albums, I must reject Spavined Gruesome's attempts at meddling with the 1st. >One nice side effect of these amendments is the Republican Party may well shrivel up and disappear The party apparatus may or may not disappear, the people who hold their nose and vote (R) will still exist... >One of the things the Germans realized is that if you want to enjoy a functioning democracy, you must silence people who hold antidemocratic views well before they become too powerful to be stopped. Democracy is when the majority is only allowed to have the Right Opinions. >Accordingly you face criminal charges in Germany for spreading Nazi propaganda. The occupying governments ...outlawed the iconography of the previous regime? Totally endogenous, I'm sure. The german state is threatened more by the numerous unreconstructed GDR Stalinists in its political and administrative circles than by skinhead knuckleheads in SS drag mincing about in the streets. >Most of the freest, most democratic nations in the world are like this. Why isn't the USA? This would have a long answer, but to simplify: Voltaire, Madison, Roger Williams > Karl Popper >Hint: the USA is not a democracy. Thank goodness. The people who wrote the Constitution knew what eventually happens to those...
jdkee 3y ago
". . . and an amendment criminalizing hate speech." And who gets to decide what "hate speech" is?

hysterix 3y ago

[flagged]

karaterobot 3y ago

I wasn't aware that a state Governor could propose an amendment at the federal level, that would be quite a move on his part. Is it possible it's just a PR stunt?

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
He hasn't proposed an amendment, he's proposed proposing an amendment. An actual proposal would require 2/3 approval by either Congress (both houses) or states' legislatures.
bitwize 3y ago
It's a (likely to pass) bill before the California legislature to call for a state constitutional convention. If 2/3 of the states pass such a measure, a convention may be called after which 3/4 of the states may ratify the proposed amendment. It's a means of amendment specified in Article V of the Constitution that can be undertaken without involving the federal Congress.

samanator 3y ago

"First they came for the Communists... Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me" - Martin Niemöller One man's hate speech is another man's freedom of expression. Who will arbitrate the definition of hate speech? What if you don't agree with their definition? What if saying you don't agree with their definition also gets labeled as hate speech by the arbitrator? It's a slippery slope...

bitwize 3y ago
> "First they came for the Communists... Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me" - Martin Niemöller And the reason why there hasn't been a repeat of that in 80 years is because now they come for the Nazis. Somehow, the slope hasn't been slippery enough that the Germans had fallen down it again in all that time. Again, responsible censorship, including arbitrating what is and isn't hate speech is something that's been successfully done in functioning democracies for decades now. Only in the USA does this seem to be a great big mystery.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  [flagged]

HnAug23tw 3y ago

[flagged]

Vaslo 3y ago

You lost everybody at Gavin Newson. Chatgpt probably could have wrote the rest of your rant. You are basically one of the typical “free speech as long as it furthers my left wing views otherwise Nazi Nazi Nazi” Lol I swear to God I only read the first two paragraphs before I wrote the above and then I just skimmed the rest of your comment and you quoted Nazi Germany!!!! To be clear, as long as there are people like you, they’ll always be people like me to make sure you don’t stay in power long.

Georgelemental 3y ago

> criminalizing hate speech Hmm, this comment by bitwise seems really hateful against free speech protections. I propose that we throw them in jail to punish them for their hatred. /s > One of the things the Germans realized is that if you want to enjoy a functioning democracy, you must silence people who hold antidemocratic views well before they become too powerful to be stopped. No, you must get your act together and fix your country's problems so that duplicitous demagogues don't have a receptive audience of depesperate people who have lost trust in the system. Nazism would never have taken over Germany if it wasn't for the hyperinflation and economic disaster of the Weimar years, the Soviets would never have won in Russia if the Czars hadn't impoverished the Russian people with serfdom and war, Putin would not be in power today if Yeltsin hadn't let the oligarchs loot the Russian people in the 90s… After WWII, the US invested a fortune through the Marshall plan to rebuild Western Europe economically, that was the most impactful measure for stopping extremism. > Hint: the USA is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy of the power elite, formed by the power elite for that very purpose. The USA is a constitutional federal republic. It's far from perfect, but it is the freest, most prosperous, most technolgically advanced, and most socially mobile nation of comparable size in history. I wasn't born here, but I live here now and have no plans of leaving; when you know what the real oligarchies are like, it gives you some perspective. But, let's assume for the more moment that you are correct, and that the US really is run entirely by evil power-hungry oligarchs. Why in the world would you want to give them more power? Do you support the oligarchs?

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

In a real democracy my political opponents would lose all of their elections and would be forbidden from expressing the beliefs I disagree with. Instead we're stuck with whatever you call it when people convince each other to vote for the wrong people. It's time to ban antidemocratic views.

linksnapzz 3y ago

>Governor Newsom in California is proposing a constitutional amendment that radically limits the absolutism of the Second Amendment. Governor Newsom ought to consider the removal of planks from his own eye, ere looking to remove the splinters from other's eyes. >It's high time we do the same for the First Amendment -- specifically a money-is-not-speech amendment and an amendment criminalizing hate speech. Who gets to make the decision as to what speech is which? > Free speech absolutism got us Kiwi Farms, Gamergate, and Trump Those are all meh, with but a few moments of hilarity; but as Free Speech also gave us the collected works of Monty Python && all of Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy's comedy albums, I must reject Spavined Gruesome's attempts at meddling with the 1st. >One nice side effect of these amendments is the Republican Party may well shrivel up and disappear The party apparatus may or may not disappear, the people who hold their nose and vote (R) will still exist... >One of the things the Germans realized is that if you want to enjoy a functioning democracy, you must silence people who hold antidemocratic views well before they become too powerful to be stopped. Democracy is when the majority is only allowed to have the Right Opinions. >Accordingly you face criminal charges in Germany for spreading Nazi propaganda. The occupying governments ...outlawed the iconography of the previous regime? Totally endogenous, I'm sure. The german state is threatened more by the numerous unreconstructed GDR Stalinists in its political and administrative circles than by skinhead knuckleheads in SS drag mincing about in the streets. >Most of the freest, most democratic nations in the world are like this. Why isn't the USA? This would have a long answer, but to simplify: Voltaire, Madison, Roger Williams > Karl Popper >Hint: the USA is not a democracy. Thank goodness. The people who wrote the Constitution knew what eventually happens to those...

jdkee 3y ago

". . . and an amendment criminalizing hate speech." And who gets to decide what "hate speech" is?