3 ms·

The 1st amendment applies to the government, so it wouldn't apply unless the DMCA request is to a government website.

foota 2y ago
The DMCA is a law that restricts the ability of people to make speech. The government is the one doing the restricting, even if the place the speech is being done isn't controlled by the government. The argument you're making is applicable when a website decides not to publish your speech (they're not the government, so the 1st amendment is irrelevant), but the DMCA is different.
- omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
  The 1st amendment only applies to freedom of speech that the government can control/affect directly. Using the DMCA like this is censorship by copywrite, and it does go against freedom of speech in society at large, but it's not a 1st amendment issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_copyright
  - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
    Lots of arguing around the point, perhaps. Freedom of speech is an American ideal. It's in the Bill of Rights because it was so important. Not as a tool to restrict this right to just government infringements. It is supposed to be a universal right. I often wonder at those arguing that it's 'ok' somehow in some circumstances because, not protected except for the govt! Somehow they've lost sight of the ideal.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
      My dude, it's restricted to just government infringements (Congress) in the Bill of Rights. > 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights If it was supposed to be a universal right for everyone/everything, it would be something like "no one shall make a law..."
      - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
        Kid, that's what I said. American ideals are not restricted to the Bill of Rights. My entire point.
        omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
        That's not what you said. > It's in the Bill of Rights because it was so important. Not as a tool to restrict this right to just government infringements. In the Bill of Rights, it's restricted to just government infringements.
  - foota 2y ago
    Interesting, thanks for clarifying. I guess the fact that people can counter claim means the ability of someone to truly limit someone else's speech is probably limited, and it's on websites to support that (which I don't think all do, but it's up to them?) Almost makes me wish it was mandatory for companies to support counter claims and to treat a customer no differently if they've filed a counter claim. (E.g., GitHub can't close your repos as long as you file a counter claim, unless they would have regardless of the DMCA claim.)
willis936 2y ago
It's the other way around. The 1st amendment protects public speech from the government, not the government from the public. Since DMCA is a law made and enforced by the government it is used illegally against the public in violation of the 1st amendment.
- omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
  Yes and no. The governments powers wrt speech are limited, but certain things like threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, and other crimes/regulations do not have 1st amendment protections. The DMCA is an exception because it's a law, just like a threat or any other illegal material/etc would be and removal of that thing can be mandated by law without it being a 1st amendment issue.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 1st amendment applies to the government, so it wouldn't apply Eh, the DMCA is still a law providing for civil and criminal sanctions based on speech. There are probably fundamental First Amendment problems with copyright. The answer to why the DMCA—and copyright as a whole—can exist is the Copyright Clause [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

The DMCA is a law that restricts the ability of people to make speech. The government is the one doing the restricting, even if the place the speech is being done isn't controlled by the government. The argument you're making is applicable when a website decides not to publish your speech (they're not the government, so the 1st amendment is irrelevant), but the DMCA is different.

omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
The 1st amendment only applies to freedom of speech that the government can control/affect directly. Using the DMCA like this is censorship by copywrite, and it does go against freedom of speech in society at large, but it's not a 1st amendment issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_copyright
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  Lots of arguing around the point, perhaps. Freedom of speech is an American ideal. It's in the Bill of Rights because it was so important. Not as a tool to restrict this right to just government infringements. It is supposed to be a universal right. I often wonder at those arguing that it's 'ok' somehow in some circumstances because, not protected except for the govt! Somehow they've lost sight of the ideal.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
    My dude, it's restricted to just government infringements (Congress) in the Bill of Rights. > 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights If it was supposed to be a universal right for everyone/everything, it would be something like "no one shall make a law..."
    - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
      Kid, that's what I said. American ideals are not restricted to the Bill of Rights. My entire point.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
        That's not what you said. > It's in the Bill of Rights because it was so important. Not as a tool to restrict this right to just government infringements. In the Bill of Rights, it's restricted to just government infringements.
- foota 2y ago
  Interesting, thanks for clarifying. I guess the fact that people can counter claim means the ability of someone to truly limit someone else's speech is probably limited, and it's on websites to support that (which I don't think all do, but it's up to them?) Almost makes me wish it was mandatory for companies to support counter claims and to treat a customer no differently if they've filed a counter claim. (E.g., GitHub can't close your repos as long as you file a counter claim, unless they would have regardless of the DMCA claim.)

willis936 2y ago

It's the other way around. The 1st amendment protects public speech from the government, not the government from the public. Since DMCA is a law made and enforced by the government it is used illegally against the public in violation of the 1st amendment.

omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
Yes and no. The governments powers wrt speech are limited, but certain things like threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, and other crimes/regulations do not have 1st amendment protections. The DMCA is an exception because it's a law, just like a threat or any other illegal material/etc would be and removal of that thing can be mandated by law without it being a 1st amendment issue.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 1st amendment applies to the government, so it wouldn't apply Eh, the DMCA is still a law providing for civil and criminal sanctions based on speech. There are probably fundamental First Amendment problems with copyright. The answer to why the DMCA—and copyright as a whole—can exist is the Copyright Clause [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause