4 ms·

Sounds like something out of 1984 to me. “We better ban all the news sources that aren’t approved by the state!” That’s going to push the USA into becoming a to

by ok_dad 3y ago

Sounds like something out of 1984 to me. “We better ban all the news sources that aren’t approved by the state!” That’s going to push the USA into becoming a totalitarian state. I’m against that, I prefer free access to information with all the warts that come with that as well. I don’t want to be tools what the state approved facts are, because that can be warped in the future when China isn’t a threat or another political group uses the law maliciously in the future. The first amendment is the first one for a reason. Free expression is key to keeping a democracy, IMO.

solardev 3y ago
I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. It was written two hundred years ago by men in a different world, without broadcast propaganda that can reach billions in seconds, dark money financing every major politician, a corrupt Supreme Court, and capitalists able to freely convert billions into political speech. Put it all together and what you have isn't a vibrant democracy with a bunch of dissenting voices, but thought bubbles shaped almost entirely by the ultra-rich and their political allies, manipulating the billions away from human rights and democratic principles -- arguably the intent of what the 1A was actually trying to protect. Instead of a citizen-first democracy, it's been warped into a "capital compels thought" dystopia. There's nothing free about this expression; it is both expensive as in dollars and enslaved as in ideology.
- bassrattle 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 to petition the governement for a redress of grievances The founding fathers were documented as being MUCH more forward-thinking than most people assume. The thought bubbles you mention and mass-manipulation existed hundreds of years ago. "Capital compels thought" isn't new and the only saving grace is the anyone can voice anything they desire and we don't need any license to participate in the marketplace of ideas.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I don't think this is a binary situation, but a matter of degree. It's not like the founding fathers weren't aware of propaganda, but the sheer scale of it today IS unprecedented. We have followed these laws for decades, and the result has been a democracy in its death throes. It's not a hypothetical, we're living through what happens when our legal system can't keep up with the rampant corruption and capitalist takeover.
- RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
  > I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. I agree. I think the modern-day challenge is not that one cannot speak freely, but that their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines --- after all, humans have limited attention. The situation is arguably worse because it suppresses free speech without being appear to suppress it.
  - bassrattle 3y ago
    Literacy rates have gone up, minorities have a bigger voice than perhaps ever. Trust in legacy media (propaganda machines) is at an all time low. It seems like the issue is that each voice is a drop in the bucket now while there are naturally giants throwing their weight around. I'm not saying we don't have new problems which need new solutions, but to fault the 1A I feel is misled. In a world where free speech is still under constant attack, we should reaffirm the strong foundations we have rather than uproot entirely.
    - RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
      > legacy media (propaganda machines) I'd say that qualification requires some upgrade. What's worse than an obvious propaganda machine? A machine. As for the 1A --- I didn't mean to fault it; it is not its fault.
    - solardev 3y ago
      It isn't the fault of the 1A that we have a signal-to-noise problem, but the 1A severely limits the tools we are able to use to address the problem (because of the simplistic way that "Congress shall make no law..." is written).
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    > their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large institutional voices? I think never, except today it’s actually easier for a lone person to get a huge platform without owning a newspaper. Suppose we pass laws allowing the executive branch to limit speech that’s against national security. Who is to say a future government won’t use it against us to limit our freedoms rather than a foreign agent’s? We already can see several laws passed to limit terrorism have instead allowed the government to spy on regular citizens and other such abuses. Now, in the name of “national security” we want to move away from free speech and start censoring things according to the current administration’s wishes? No thank you!
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  So the solution to that is to restrict the 1A even more?! That makes absolutely 0 sense. If the pretty doomer outlook you said is true, then who would you trust to restrict the 1A? Politicians? You said they are corrupt. The masses? They are apparently under the influence of propaganda. I also dislike the weird double speak here, where you argue that to save democracy we can't trust the people. Maybe you are knee deep into the thought bubble you mention too. (Not saying this as an accusation, more so as a sanity check )
  - solardev 3y ago
    (Edit: A shorter way to express my thoughts is simply that when we ask a question like "What should we do about foreign propaganda in social media", we should have a legal framework that allows us to explore all possible costs and benefits, not one that just says "Nothing, because an amendment forbids any government action on it"). My opinion (and that's all this is): When it comes to politics and laws, we should not be dealing with oversimplified binary absolutes, especially when those absolutes were defined by ancient minorities who lived in very different times. It's not just a binary yes/no, we can or cannot trust the government (or the people, or the media, or anyone). The law should be nuanced enough to deal with exceptional circumstances and evolving societies, not be held back by the summarized opinions of people long dead -- opinions that, however well-intended originally, were later weaponized by cynical oligarchs who put their own interests over that of the country's. Specifically, when it comes to the Constitution, it was a good idea to enshrine a check and balance against federal government overreach. However, the amendment process is so difficult it may as well not exist, leading to both an overly prescriptive 1A and other issues (like an ambiguous 2A, rights to privacy, etc.) In my mind, free speech shouldn't be an absolute, but a value we both hold in very high regard most of time, but also know when to temper for the sake of national sanctity -- especially when it comes to things like foreign propaganda or similarly powerful broadcasters. As an example only, if the 1A were more nuanced and allowed less drastic measures than outright censorship, for example, we could perhaps enact labeling laws for political propaganda on social media, or have truth in political advertising laws, etc. Or, you know, just not have Citizens United because it's terrible policy, despite (or maybe because of) it's 1A implications. Another example: If the 2A were more nuanced, gun ownership could be both more responsible and less tribal, and something as simple as registration needn't elicit panicked doomsday responses. It's not that I care about TikTok per se, but what's more terrifying to me than the CCP is that the entire USA is held captive by nine old farts who can interpret and redefine these archaic passages on their whims, with zero checks and balances, and that there are only two shitty parties that appoint them as a tug-of-war game every few years, all without regard to the citizens. Who should we trust to do this? Nobody and everybody -- as in, my ideal government would be far more democratic and far less elitist, with everything up to and including the Constitution itself subject to public reviews and referendums. Yes, politicians are corrupt and people are dumb, but at the same time, these situations can self-correct over sufficient time if the process allows it. It took France several revolutions, Germany several world wars, the UK multiple lost colonies, etc. to get the societies they have today. We should keep changing too. My underlying concern is more about Constitutional originalism and other forms of legal fundamentalism overriding the democratic will of the governed. We shouldn't be held hostage by what previous generations of politicians said; we must be able to evolve laws as society itself evolves. This doesn't really happen anymore, especially when one party in particular has a vested interest in using faux traditionalism as a dog whistle. I don't see this as double-speak. It's only because our Constitution is so old and written so tersely that we are forced to be tribal and take sides for everything in it. In reality, legal situations are never this black and white, and it shouldn't be solely up to an unelected and increasingly corrupt body of judges to interpret our most important laws.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by ok_dad 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. It was written two hundred years ago by men in a different world, without broadcast propaganda that can reach billions in seconds, dark money financing every major politician, a corrupt Supreme Court, and capitalists able to freely convert billions into political speech. Put it all together and what you have isn't a vibrant democracy with a bunch of dissenting voices, but thought bubbles shaped almost entirely by the ultra-rich and their political allies, manipulating the billions away from human rights and democratic principles -- arguably the intent of what the 1A was actually trying to protect. Instead of a citizen-first democracy, it's been warped into a "capital compels thought" dystopia. There's nothing free about this expression; it is both expensive as in dollars and enslaved as in ideology.

bassrattle 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 to petition the governement for a redress of grievances The founding fathers were documented as being MUCH more forward-thinking than most people assume. The thought bubbles you mention and mass-manipulation existed hundreds of years ago. "Capital compels thought" isn't new and the only saving grace is the anyone can voice anything they desire and we don't need any license to participate in the marketplace of ideas.
- solardev 3y ago
  I don't think this is a binary situation, but a matter of degree. It's not like the founding fathers weren't aware of propaganda, but the sheer scale of it today IS unprecedented. We have followed these laws for decades, and the result has been a democracy in its death throes. It's not a hypothetical, we're living through what happens when our legal system can't keep up with the rampant corruption and capitalist takeover.
RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
> I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. I agree. I think the modern-day challenge is not that one cannot speak freely, but that their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines --- after all, humans have limited attention. The situation is arguably worse because it suppresses free speech without being appear to suppress it.
- bassrattle 3y ago
  Literacy rates have gone up, minorities have a bigger voice than perhaps ever. Trust in legacy media (propaganda machines) is at an all time low. It seems like the issue is that each voice is a drop in the bucket now while there are naturally giants throwing their weight around. I'm not saying we don't have new problems which need new solutions, but to fault the 1A I feel is misled. In a world where free speech is still under constant attack, we should reaffirm the strong foundations we have rather than uproot entirely.
  - RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
    > legacy media (propaganda machines) I'd say that qualification requires some upgrade. What's worse than an obvious propaganda machine? A machine. As for the 1A --- I didn't mean to fault it; it is not its fault.
  - solardev 3y ago
    It isn't the fault of the 1A that we have a signal-to-noise problem, but the 1A severely limits the tools we are able to use to address the problem (because of the simplistic way that "Congress shall make no law..." is written).
- ok_dad 3y ago
  > their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large institutional voices? I think never, except today it’s actually easier for a lone person to get a huge platform without owning a newspaper. Suppose we pass laws allowing the executive branch to limit speech that’s against national security. Who is to say a future government won’t use it against us to limit our freedoms rather than a foreign agent’s? We already can see several laws passed to limit terrorism have instead allowed the government to spy on regular citizens and other such abuses. Now, in the name of “national security” we want to move away from free speech and start censoring things according to the current administration’s wishes? No thank you!
mardifoufs 3y ago
So the solution to that is to restrict the 1A even more?! That makes absolutely 0 sense. If the pretty doomer outlook you said is true, then who would you trust to restrict the 1A? Politicians? You said they are corrupt. The masses? They are apparently under the influence of propaganda. I also dislike the weird double speak here, where you argue that to save democracy we can't trust the people. Maybe you are knee deep into the thought bubble you mention too. (Not saying this as an accusation, more so as a sanity check )
- solardev 3y ago
  (Edit: A shorter way to express my thoughts is simply that when we ask a question like "What should we do about foreign propaganda in social media", we should have a legal framework that allows us to explore all possible costs and benefits, not one that just says "Nothing, because an amendment forbids any government action on it"). My opinion (and that's all this is): When it comes to politics and laws, we should not be dealing with oversimplified binary absolutes, especially when those absolutes were defined by ancient minorities who lived in very different times. It's not just a binary yes/no, we can or cannot trust the government (or the people, or the media, or anyone). The law should be nuanced enough to deal with exceptional circumstances and evolving societies, not be held back by the summarized opinions of people long dead -- opinions that, however well-intended originally, were later weaponized by cynical oligarchs who put their own interests over that of the country's. Specifically, when it comes to the Constitution, it was a good idea to enshrine a check and balance against federal government overreach. However, the amendment process is so difficult it may as well not exist, leading to both an overly prescriptive 1A and other issues (like an ambiguous 2A, rights to privacy, etc.) In my mind, free speech shouldn't be an absolute, but a value we both hold in very high regard most of time, but also know when to temper for the sake of national sanctity -- especially when it comes to things like foreign propaganda or similarly powerful broadcasters. As an example only, if the 1A were more nuanced and allowed less drastic measures than outright censorship, for example, we could perhaps enact labeling laws for political propaganda on social media, or have truth in political advertising laws, etc. Or, you know, just not have Citizens United because it's terrible policy, despite (or maybe because of) it's 1A implications. Another example: If the 2A were more nuanced, gun ownership could be both more responsible and less tribal, and something as simple as registration needn't elicit panicked doomsday responses. It's not that I care about TikTok per se, but what's more terrifying to me than the CCP is that the entire USA is held captive by nine old farts who can interpret and redefine these archaic passages on their whims, with zero checks and balances, and that there are only two shitty parties that appoint them as a tug-of-war game every few years, all without regard to the citizens. Who should we trust to do this? Nobody and everybody -- as in, my ideal government would be far more democratic and far less elitist, with everything up to and including the Constitution itself subject to public reviews and referendums. Yes, politicians are corrupt and people are dumb, but at the same time, these situations can self-correct over sufficient time if the process allows it. It took France several revolutions, Germany several world wars, the UK multiple lost colonies, etc. to get the societies they have today. We should keep changing too. My underlying concern is more about Constitutional originalism and other forms of legal fundamentalism overriding the democratic will of the governed. We shouldn't be held hostage by what previous generations of politicians said; we must be able to evolve laws as society itself evolves. This doesn't really happen anymore, especially when one party in particular has a vested interest in using faux traditionalism as a dog whistle. I don't see this as double-speak. It's only because our Constitution is so old and written so tersely that we are forced to be tribal and take sides for everything in it. In reality, legal situations are never this black and white, and it shouldn't be solely up to an unelected and increasingly corrupt body of judges to interpret our most important laws.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]