3 ms·

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

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.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        Please read the first amendment: > 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. It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.
        zfg 2y ago
        Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state. You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments. Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        > Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. > It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?
      - mulmen 2y ago
        The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds. If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.
lxgr 2y ago
A private company restricting speech is a freedom of speech issue in the general sense, but most certainly not a First Amendment issue. Of course that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to happen, or that there should not be any laws preventing it.
bluefirebrand 2y ago
> as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond Really we're going backwards here Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are
- mmooss 2y ago
  What metrics are available on these things? Is it based on a survey?

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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      Please read the first amendment: > 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. It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.
      - zfg 2y ago
        Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state. You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments. Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        > Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. > It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?
    - mulmen 2y ago
      The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds. If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

lxgr 2y ago

A private company restricting speech is a freedom of speech issue in the general sense, but most certainly not a First Amendment issue. Of course that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to happen, or that there should not be any laws preventing it.

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond Really we're going backwards here Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are

mmooss 2y ago
What metrics are available on these things? Is it based on a survey?