5 ms·

This is not a 1st amendment issue. This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a

This is not a 1st amendment issue. This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life. Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp. We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk dystopia and none of the flying cars or bio-enhancements.

zfg 2y ago
> This is not a 1st amendment issue. It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker. If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.
- mingus88 2y ago
  The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.
  - MindBeams 2y ago
    It is a capitalism issue. But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
  - thayne 2y ago
    It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
      - hunter2_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - lxgr 2y ago
      That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. --- That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery Government does, but other entities don’t. I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here. The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.
  - collingreen 2y ago
    You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power. Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.
ysofunny 2y ago
it's a 1st ammendment issue in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart because citizen-president Trump is a power bully but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land
- cosmotic 2y ago
  First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue
  - zfg 2y ago
    It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does. If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > It is protection by the state. It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.
      - zfg 2y ago
        And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.
harimau777 2y ago
While that may be technically correct I don't think it's actually correct. Just because it doesn't violate the 1st amendment doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech. Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions. Well, yes, but I'd say the more important part is that students are having their visas revoked and being pulled off the street into immigration detention because of social media posts.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

zfg 2y ago

> This is not a 1st amendment issue. It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker. If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

mingus88 2y ago
The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.
- MindBeams 2y ago
  It is a capitalism issue. But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
- thayne 2y ago
  It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
    - hunter2_ 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - lxgr 2y ago
    That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. --- That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.
rdtsc 2y ago
> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery Government does, but other entities don’t. I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here. The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.
- collingreen 2y ago
  You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power. Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

ysofunny 2y ago

it's a 1st ammendment issue in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart because citizen-president Trump is a power bully but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land

cosmotic 2y ago
First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue
- zfg 2y ago
  It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does. If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > It is protection by the state. It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.
    - zfg 2y ago
      And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

harimau777 2y ago

While that may be technically correct I don't think it's actually correct. Just because it doesn't violate the 1st amendment doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech. Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.

pjc50 2y ago
> Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions. Well, yes, but I'd say the more important part is that students are having their visas revoked and being pulled off the street into immigration detention because of social media posts.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]