4 ms·

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 i

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.)

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.)