3 ms·

I'm not finding a game theory exception to the first amendment.

by delichon 3y ago

troll_v_bridge 3y ago
A Chinese company, you just found one.
- nasdaq-txn 3y ago
  "Amendment I 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." Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.
  - troll_v_bridge 3y ago
    Huawei is an example. Foreign companies don’t have the same rights, in large part because of national security concerns. For example is the concern is that a China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms, then it’s a moot argument to say TikTok is protected by us law.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      > China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has been specifically identified as a form of speech protected by the first amendment.
  - tivert 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." > Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here. It's not that simple. I don't see any exceptions for laws against defamation, child porn either, or limits on foreign ownership of TV stations, yet they're there.
- pinkmuffinere 3y ago
  You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem. I think that's a you problem. I read "Chinese" as "foreign adversary company," and not as anything to do with race.
  - troll_v_bridge 3y ago
    I’m married to an ethnic Chinese, I was referring to the CCP, which most people colloquially call “Chinese”. But agree that people will confuse this colloquial term for the Chinese government the CCP for the ethnicity. Most Chinese people outside of china despise the CCP.
corimaith 3y ago
Applying constitutional rights to entities you don't have the monopoly on violence on strikes me as suicidal.
- temporarely 3y ago
  Am I misreading this or did you just say 'cause government can always apply violence to you if they don't like your speech'.

I'm not finding a game theory exception to the first amendment.

troll_v_bridge 3y ago

A Chinese company, you just found one.

nasdaq-txn 3y ago
"Amendment I 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." Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.
- troll_v_bridge 3y ago
  Huawei is an example. Foreign companies don’t have the same rights, in large part because of national security concerns. For example is the concern is that a China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms, then it’s a moot argument to say TikTok is protected by us law.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has been specifically identified as a form of speech protected by the first amendment.
- tivert 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." > Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here. It's not that simple. I don't see any exceptions for laws against defamation, child porn either, or limits on foreign ownership of TV stations, yet they're there.
pinkmuffinere 3y ago
You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem.
- tivert 3y ago
  > You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem. I think that's a you problem. I read "Chinese" as "foreign adversary company," and not as anything to do with race.
- troll_v_bridge 3y ago
  I’m married to an ethnic Chinese, I was referring to the CCP, which most people colloquially call “Chinese”. But agree that people will confuse this colloquial term for the Chinese government the CCP for the ethnicity. Most Chinese people outside of china despise the CCP.

corimaith 3y ago

Applying constitutional rights to entities you don't have the monopoly on violence on strikes me as suicidal.

temporarely 3y ago
Am I misreading this or did you just say 'cause government can always apply violence to you if they don't like your speech'.