26 ms·

How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

• throwaway802 2y ago
  [flagged]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• tombert 2y ago
  I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us. I mean, I get it, bad shit needs to be reported on, the Trump admin does a lot of bad shit, it makes sense, but it's just extremely tiring. I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around). I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.
  • Afforess 2y ago
    Voting is the minimum of civic duty, not the maximum.
    • tombert 2y ago
      Sure. What are you doing outside of voting?
      • Afforess 2y ago
        I’m an active DSA member. What about you?
        • bmitc 2y ago
          And how is that attacking the problems that led here?
          • Afforess 2y ago
            [flagged]
        • tombert 2y ago
          Sure, but is that actually doing something? This isn't meant to be passive aggressive; presumably if you're advertising it, you're doing more than "just being a member", I'm just curious what that is.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • bongodongobob 2y ago
        Civil disobedience. There's an entire spectrum of what you can do with that.
    • sheepscreek 2y ago
      Regarding civic duty, I would start by “being civil with your fellow citizens”. The irony is not lost on me. Edit: To be clear, my comment is not aimed at you. I mean we’re missing the A in the ABCs of civic duty. It’s each person for themselves.
      • Afforess 2y ago
        How was my response uncivil? Your reply is bad faith because it provides no evidence.
        • sheepscreek 2y ago
          I didn’t intend to offend you, neither did I mean to say you were wrong. I apologize if my words came across that way. My point was a play on the word “civil” and how the bare minimum duty of a citizen should be to love thy neighbour.
    • timewizard 2y ago
      Voting is not a civic duty. I have every right NOT to vote. It's my voice and I can use it as I please. Forcing me into a ballot box to pick between two awful choices is not civilized.
      • tombert 2y ago
        I didn't force you to do anything. No one did. I'm just judging you.
        • timewizard 2y ago
          > I'm just judging you. Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with? I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?
          • tombert 2y ago
            > Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with? I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff" that seems to permeate around here, so it's not really a "gotcha" to point out that I'm being a judgmental asshole. > I take it you think no one could judge you for your position? I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions. You're free to think that position is stupid if you want. There's eight billion other people on this planet, there's always going to be people who think my opinions are stupid. I think yours is stupid. It's a beautiful system.
            • timewizard 2y ago
              > I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff" What is your goal? > I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions. People would hear more of them if they weren't so coarse. Be generous. You'd might be surprised what you're missing.
              • tombert 2y ago
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • kmeisthax 2y ago
    You might have an interest in this: https://globalcomment.com/how-to-defeat-an-autocrat-flocking-behaviour/ https://globalcomment.com/how-to-defeat-an-autocrat-flocking...
    • outside1234 2y ago
      Yes - we ALL have to flock together around the basic concepts that unite us. I think this is what we are seeing with the Tesla protests and we need to push harder to get to the 3.5% of the population that forces the system to adjust.
  • dgacmu 2y ago
    You said you didn't know what to do, so some ideas to start the ideas flowing for you: - support media, particularly local. - there are protests to attend if that's your thing. Tesla takedown is one set that's getting a lot of traction. (Note: these are peaceful protests; don't hurt people's cars). There's a broad "hands off" protest April 5, as another example. - build and stay in touch with community. - encourage others to do the same. Can you get folks to move off Twitter? Get some web site you're associated with to replace their twitter share icon with a masto/bsky one? Get folks to make a plan to vote in the next election? To themselves support local media or organizations? Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?
    • tombert 2y ago
      > support media, particularly local. Agreed. No argument on that. > there are protests to attend if that's your thing. I'm afraid they're not. I'm happy to donate money to causes for people to protest but just being honest, I'm probably not going to do it. > Tesla takedown is getting a lot of traction I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand. > Can you get folks to move off Twitter? None of my family or friends were really using Twitter even before Elon bought it. > To make a plan to vote in the next election? All my family and friends vote in every election anyway. > To themselves support local media or organizations? Again, agreed on that. I'll mention that to parents next time I talk to them. > Perhaps to run for school board or other local office? I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician. I am also afraid it would turn me evil. I don't really disagree with anything you said, just that I'm already doing most of what you suggested.
      • ryanwatkins 2y ago
        > I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand. Divest of Tesla. In a 401k move from index funds to other funds without or less TSLA. Or invest in inverse EFTs that essentially short Tesla - TSLS, TSLQ, and TSLZ. Not buying a Tesla or torching a Cybertruck are not the only options.
  • petesergeant 2y ago
    You do you. Continue to vote, and if you can find a local cause that you can give time and attention to, do that. If you can find some small way you can help people who are affected, do that. Subscribe to news sources you trust and think are shining a light on the right things. Maybe setup small donations to candidates you think are pushing the country in the right direction. Not everyone needs to fight every fight.
    • tombert 2y ago
      I do donate to candidates that I think are less evil than the average politician. A bit more locally; my wife is Mexican and as such I have a lot of Mexican in-laws. I have been helping my brother-in-law deal with immigration lawyers (and paid for them) in hopes that he might be able to get his citizenship soon-ish. If I felt like anything I did in the grand political scope would do anything, I'd do it. I used to be a lot more active in this stuff, but it's pretty easy to get disillusioned and cynical with this stuff.
      • petesergeant 2y ago
        Impossible to care about everything all at once, and easy to get disillusioned and shut down to nothing. Keep pushing in the ways that you can, give the energy that you can, and what more can anyone ask of you?
  • carterschonwald 2y ago
    Run for office and aggressively fight back.
  • bilegeek 2y ago
    Not just an inferred point, it's been explicitly stated before. In the longer form interviews (can't find everything in full at the moment), the context is the news media in particular, but it applies to the general public as well. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiaU8P9y-wU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiaU8P9y-wU [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0 (short clip) [3]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iTSgL_R1CC4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iTSgL_R1CC4 (another short clip)
  • throw0101d 2y ago
    > I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us. From 2017: * https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/7/14844120/how-to-fight-trump-fatigue-syndrome https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/7/14844120/how-to-fight... The firehouse is also a deliberate strategy: > The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood * https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html If you need to take a break, certain do so ("touch grass"), but be mindful that everyone's support is needed, and this will be a marathon. See also recent post on Snyder's book On Tyranny: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43503004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43503004
    • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Think in Bayesian terms. If you update your priors at all when the lie comes, then the firehose will overwhelm you, because the lie (or a similar, related lie) comes so often. If you update at all, then you wind up believing it. But the only defense is to not update your priors. That means that you don't update on things that are actually true, either. This is basically the death of epistemology. How do you know, and how do you know you know? It's no longer possible in this environment. Postmodernism talked about a post-truth world. Putin has made it a reality.
  • outer_web 2y ago
    There are a few things that are on their way to SCOTUS. Be prepared to react to the elimination of independent agencies or the legalization of impoundment. Yes, the noise is to make you exhausted/miss the important things. Probably safe to ignore talk about invading Greenland.
  • amitport 2y ago
    People voted for Trump because the democratic party is THAT bad. Instead of keeping attacking Trump maybe it is time to ponder what is it about the current democratic party that made so many people disapprove of them.
    • someothherguyy 2y ago
      Plenty of other reasons they could have voted the way they did? https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...
      • amitport 2y ago
        I haven't listed the reasons I am pointing the underlying lack of internal critisism in the democractic party and their supporters. The democractic party was terrible in regards to many issues many people cared about. You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about.
        • someothherguyy 2y ago
          > You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about. Not sure what you mean? All I shared was a set of exit polls?
  • Throwaway5369 2y ago
    Protest. Go onto the streets. Doing nothing means accepting the way things are
• forgetfreeman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • cosmicgadget 2y ago
    Do you expect earnest discussion when you accuse people here of screeching?
  • mattnewton 2y ago
    I honestly don’t know what you mean and others probably don’t either?
    • forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Pick any thread that features discussion of moderation on Twitter or Facebook and peruse at your leisure. To summarize: HN has a very vocal cohort that cosplay Thurgood Marshal whenever content moderation on major social media platforms comes up for discussion. The dual irony that these are entirely privately owned non-public spaces and that moderation isn't being performed by government agents is generally lost on these champions of the First Amendment.
• refusingsalt 2y ago
  [flagged]
• mig39 2y ago
  I don't understand. This is literally what people voted for, isn't it?
  • rudedogg 2y ago
    The US Government has checks and balances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_and_balances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_an...
    • mig39 2y ago
      I understand that, but the people literally voted for someone who promised to get rid of checks and balances, and rule as a dictator. Isn't that what they wanted?
      • jerlam 2y ago
        An oversimplification is that people voted against the status quo, not necessarily "for" Trump. Since the US only has a two-party system, the actual policies were irrelevant.
      • deckar01 2y ago
        Republicans and independents indicated in polls that they did not take what Trump said during the 2024 campaign literally. Voters didn’t give him a mandate, they thought they were voting for a troll. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/22/many-voters-arent-taking-trumps-comments-seriously https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/22/many-voters-...
    • outer_web 2y ago
      I don't think he is condoning it or saying it's legal, simply that it was a campaign promise being fulfilled.
• zamalek 2y ago
  If Trump wins the next election, take that as the signal of the point of no return. It happened to Rome, it can happen to America.
  • 1970-01-01 2y ago
    It can also fail outright if voters and Congress pick up the scent of Emperor at midterms. History does not always repeat. If it did, we would not have had democracy to begin with.
    • zamalek 2y ago
      I think in this case it will require the non-voters picking up the scent of a monarch. This is why I believe that point is yet to come (though I do believe that the belief that we are passed it is also very rational, only history will know).
  • blatantly 2y ago
    Trump the person or Trump the family or even Trump the idea.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • jfengel 2y ago
    We are already long past the point of no return. He is the manifestation of a popular will. Even if he vanished tomorrow, those voters will remain. They will not be daunted by an electoral setback. They control the Supreme Court, and will for decades. They control a majority of state legislatures -- which control how voting and districting work. We've been past the point of no return since 2016. If you still had hope then, it should have died the same day Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. At this point it's all just telling ourselves fairy stories. It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.
    • 2y ago
• blatantly 2y ago
  This is a brilliant article because it is summarising how bad it is. They don't want you to know how bad! Lots of paper cuts and hopefully no one sees the amputation. We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
  • TheBlight 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • petesergeant 2y ago
      Which bits do you think are wrong?
    • forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Food for thought: elimination of basic rights impacts all citizens regardless of their political affiliation.
      • shermantanktop 2y ago
        Similarly, expanding executive powers benefits whoever has the position, not just the guy who is in there right now. The self-defeating behavior of the legislative branch, across both parties, for decades led to the risks going up invisibly. And it turns out, risks usually go up without people noticing.
        • forgetfreeman 2y ago
          Pretty much, yeah. I hold both major political parties and their partisans responsible for the current dumpster fire in Washington, and all of the dumb shit that's preceded it over the last 40-odd years.
          • wredcoll 2y ago
            Wow, what a brave and inspiring position to take. Thank you for signalling your virtue so loudly.
• gavin_gee 2y ago
  [flagged]
• carterschonwald 2y ago
  As best I can tell, the simplest way to fight back via legal channels sans unlimited legal budget is to run for office. Like I’m seriously trying to figure out if that’s a sane option for me despite my total disregard and distrust of authority. Also my distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies, traditions or bullshit.
  • crooked-v 2y ago
    See the group Run For Something, who are actively helping people do this. https://runforsomething.net/run/ https://runforsomething.net/run/
  • try_the_bass 2y ago
    I mean, if your problems stem from the political machine, then getting involved in the machine does sound like the best option. Put differently: if you feel like no part of the political machine accurately represents you, the most straightforward way to remedy that is by representing yourself.
  • ripped_britches 2y ago
    > distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies Good luck with that Just messing, I really hope genuinely good people run for office instead of LBJ type bullies
    • mrguyorama 2y ago
      LBJ's "bullying" is the only reason we have the Civil Rights act. At the time, a large bloc of senators said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states." The bill was fillibustered for 60 days. The former confederate states pretty much all voted against it. The south VIOLENTLY resisted desegregation.
  • jmyeet 2y ago
    I've come to realize there's absolutely no reforming the Democratic Party. They are willing accomplices in this. Consider these examples: - In 2001, an open socialist, India Walton, won the Democratic primary for mayor. The State Democratic Party united with Republicans to fund a write-in campaign to re-elect Byron Brown as mayor, which was successful [1]; - Adam Schiff and the California Democratic Party spent millions to prop up a Republican to get the second-most votes in the California Senate primary. Why? California has what's called a "jungle primary" where the two candidates with the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, are on the ballot in the general election. The Republican has no chance so Schiff and the California Democrats are just making sure no progressive ends up on the ticket; - The shenanigans in 2016 to make Hilary Clinton, a terrible candidate, the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders, including withholding funding, the threat of superdelegates and generally just putting the thumb on the scale at every turn; - Again in 2020 with Bernie Sanders. Jim Clyburn and the DNC arranged for Biden to take South Carolina. Elizabeth Warren stayed in just long enough to peel off Bernie's votes. Other candidates got out of the way (eg Pete Buttigieg) and were rewarded for it with Cabinet positions; - When Biden finally withdraw his re-election bid one option on the table was to have a convention primary. Instead Biden and the DNC simply anointed Kamala Harris because they were scared a progressive might win; - Henry Cuellar, Congressman from Texas, is the (I believe) only anti-choice Democratic in the House. He has twice now faced a stiff primary challenge from progressive Jessica Cisneros who ran a grassroots campaign, the last time only winning by a few hundred votes. Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn went down to campaign for him in Texas. If the Democratic Party opposed Trump half as well as they do progressive elements in their own party, we'd be living in a very different country. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/elections-buffalo-campaigns-election-2020-kathy-hochul-3a9568d679f53e58003ebaa42c4cd1c6 https://apnews.com/article/elections-buffalo-campaigns-elect...
• galacticaactual 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • nsxwolf 2y ago
    Disinformation is not free speech.
    • galacticaactual 2y ago
      Who's making the determination something is disinformation? You? No thanks. Reference Wuhan Labs.
      • outer_web 2y ago
        That's at least 50% on you guys for bundling it with a lot of other conspiracy stuff.
      • nsxwolf 2y ago
        I mean, a lot of very smart people told me that you shouldn’t be allowed to say things like “masks don’t work”. They also said hate speech isn’t free speech. Who am I to argue? Personally I found everything in the article to be ludicrous and to have Jack-all to do with the First Amendment, but I am not very smart.
        • mattnewton 2y ago
          Withholding federal funds from colleges for not cracking down hard enough on speech the government doesn’t like isn’t related to the first amendment? Or it is but it’s ludicrous?
          • nsxwolf 2y ago
            1A is not about federal funds.
            • 2y ago
• NullPrefix 2y ago
  Trump is elected and everybody suddenly start caring about civil rights
  • mattnewton 2y ago
    Actually government officials started ignoring the FOIA, firing federal oversight employees, deporting students, and cutting federal funding for colleges that have protests the administration doesn’t like.
• nine_zeros 2y ago
  I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law. I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights. I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks? The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse. Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?
  • mattnewton 2y ago
    American voters no longer agree on what made America special.
    • nine_zeros 2y ago
      Yes, misinformation won. But when Trump actively cuts benefits, cuts jobs, cuts research, asks for bribes openly, quid pro quo everywhere, town halls unanswered - do voters in America feel willing to change their votes? Are voters willing to strike until the President resigns? Or are people ok with the country being sold to third world style corruption that is happening right in front of their faces?
      • shadowgovt 2y ago
        American voters are insulated from a lot of that, which is one of the reasons the misinformation works. Think about the number of moving parts between a federal job cut and most private-sector individuals feeling it. Or between research and the years before the dried-up pipeline slows down the country's progress. And most Americans don't attend, nor are interested in, town halls.
      • SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        One of Trump's major political strengths has been his consistent stance, in contradiction to the Republican mainstream, that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should not be cut. That's why he does so much better with lower income voters dependent on those programs than McCain or Romney could. I definitely think voters will turn on him if he changes his mind and cuts them anyway.
• declan_roberts 2y ago
  Trump had allegedly fired people responsible for FOIA but at the same time we are finally seeing documents that the DOJ and FBI have been slow walking for almost 8 years or longer. Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.
  • shadowgovt 2y ago
    Both of these things can be true: the administration can fire people responsible for FOIA while fast-tracking requests they consider high priority with the remaining staff.
  • stephen_g 2y ago
    That they released a set of pretty inconsequential documents and might release some info on political opponents doesn't make up for gutting FOIA!
  • zip1234 2y ago
    On top of that, violating public records laws by using signal chat for official communications with disappearing messages turned on.
    • declan_roberts 2y ago
      Are there settings you can apply to Signal that make them compatible with record retention laws?
      • allset_ 2y ago
        No.
      • Volundr 2y ago
        No. Signal stores messages only on the receiving device by design. If there were it would still be irrelevant. They specifically used the settings to delete messages after a few weeks.
    • 2y ago
• sega_sai 2y ago
  As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)
  • uoaei 2y ago
    The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people. Media is the practice of including and excluding voices, and there are distinct trends over time of representing one or another set of voices.
    • mmooss 2y ago
      > The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people. The same people supporting Trump, from national thought leaders like Heritage and the Federalist society, to Murdoch publications (Fos, WSJ), to everyday people on social media have long pushed hard for expanded Second Amendment rights, expended freedom of religion which outweighs all other considerations and rights, and freedom of speech, etc. for right-wing hate speech (including their focus on social media moderation) - just as examples.
      • pmarreck 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • mmooss 2y ago
          But why use AI? Why not just write your own response?
          • pmarreck 2y ago
            I have a toddler and zero assistance other than daycare. IYKYK.
• starchild3001 2y ago
  I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment. And the same principles made it a world leader. Now that enlightenment values are actively being dismantled what next can we expect?
  • starchild3001 2y ago
    1) Dark enlightenment: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/dark-enlightenment-elon-musk https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/dark-enlightenment-elon... (Does this ring a bell -- as in Dark MAGA?) 2) The Interview Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in... 3) The philosophy behind Trump’s Dark Enlightenment An English magus of anti-democratic neoreaction has become a touchstone for the alt-right https://archive.is/SWAFE https://archive.is/SWAFE
  • mmooss 2y ago
    I think it starts with undermining the values: Note the disparagement of freedom, of knowledge, science, and education as ways humans can make their world better - even the idea of making the world better and of truth itself; of the rule of law rather than the rule of power, and the embrace of violence, athletics, etc. Notice the contempt for the enlightenment and embrace of ancient Rome and other sub-democratic or dictatorial government. I don't think it's accidental; I think people have a plan to bring down institutions, and it's working so far.
    • zmgsabst 2y ago
      It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US. That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.
      • mmooss 2y ago
        > That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations. I'm talking about the principles: freedom, rights, and self-determination as self-evident, essential goods; progress as essential and good (real progress, not padding bank accounts); knowledge as the way humans can change their world; and knowledge provided by science and scholarship. The left has criticized many things as lacking in knowledge and threats to freedom and rights, and the institutions, but not these principles. > It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US. It was a branch of conservatives before them, but MAGA has fully embraced it. Look at the denial of freedom and human rights, replaced by a naked, aggressive embrace of oppression and cruelty. Look at the contempt for those things and progress, in the name of power. Look at replacing science with ideological disinformation - at even aggressively destroying science - even when it costs millions of lives, such as during a pandemic. How much blood is on their hands - how many needless deaths? Nobody talks about it.
• quotemstr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Analemma_ 2y ago
    You're not supposed to forget it happened, you're supposed to have principles and oppose it all the time instead of going "well now it's OUR turn!", which just invites more escalation and retaliation and helps nobody.
  • starchild3001 2y ago
    Government censors and preferential treatment are no match for a social network deciding what to allow on their platforms. Not even close. One is a free market and free association (you know there are many alternative platforms these days?). The other is serfdom.
    • quotemstr 2y ago
      Don't pretend the government didn't use its power and influence to pressure ostensibly private social networks to censor true information and sincerely held opinions. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • russdill 2y ago
        So the government "expressed a lot of frustration" and meta eventually agreed... And says they would make a different decision in the future, making it clear that taking down the information was a voluntary choice.
        • djrj477dhsnv 2y ago
          Any large organization that is subject to regulatory oversight can not simply choose to ignore the government when it expresses "a lot of frustration" and not expect retaliation. Selective enforcement and ambiguous rules are the very effective sticks that governments use all the time against whomever doesn't fall in line.
• slowhadoken 2y ago
  I can’t remember anyone respecting mainstream US news for the last 30+ years. Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question.
  • verteu 2y ago
    Asset managers do not control the news. Jack Bogle died with a net worth of $80mm. He was not even powerful enough to afford a top-tier penthouse in Manhattan, let alone control the media.
    • slowhadoken 2y ago
      BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group each respectably manage trillions of dollars in asset, private equity, and debt. They're independent firms but each own substantial shares in one another. Together these 3 firms are major shareholders in FAANG (big US tech) and mainstream US news agencies. BlackRock alone has disclosed through their latest SEC filings that it holds stakes in 5,387 companies globally. https://fintel.io/i/blackrock https://fintel.io/i/blackrock https://ecell.iitm.ac.in/blog/post/above-the-fold-a-company-that-owns-everything-blackrock https://ecell.iitm.ac.in/blog/post/above-the-fold-a-company-...
      • verteu 2y ago
        If managing clients' shares gives them such colossal power, how come the founder of Vanguard was worth less than the founder of In-N-Out Burger?
        • slowhadoken 2y ago
          The Medici Family was powerful because they were bankers of the papacy, i.e., they managed the Pope's finances.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question It’s a stupid question easily dismissed with a modicum of research. (Most papers aren’t public.)
• ralusek 2y ago
  Are Democrats constantly in violation of the constitution, and openly hostile to the first amendment? Yes. Does that make any of this acceptable? No. And a good deal of this is even more concerning.
  • vlovich123 2y ago
    Can you elaborate? This article is talking about the threats posed by the Trump administration not by the Democrats who have no real power in the federal government at the moment.
  • SoyAnto 2y ago
    What are these violations of the constitution committed by democrats you speak of?
    • DangitBobby 2y ago
      Probably 2nd Amendment. Democrats do push a pretty tortured interpretation of 2A, it's true.
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  Whatever Trump says: he does the opposite . As long as Fox News reports what he says as fact no one does anything
• twright 2y ago
  This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.
  • p1necone 2y ago
    I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
    • cyanydeez 2y ago
      Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.
    • echelon 2y ago
      The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech. You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it. The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack. Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only. [1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
• GrumpyCat42 2y ago
  What Brian and a lot of the commenters here need to realize is that online outrage does not help progressive causes in the slightest. While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf: Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020. This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population. I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.
  • girvo 2y ago
    I didn't see any "online outrage" from Brian here, just a sadly sober listing of all the direct attacks on the first amendment, with sources and explanation. Heck, it's not even political despite the screeching to the contrary. You're right that action must be taken too, but action does require an understanding of the battlefield one is entering.
    • GrumpyCat42 2y ago
      YMMV, but I would argue that claiming Trump is waging an unprecedented attack against the first amendment, accompanied by a picture of the first amendment ripped in half, is calling for (rightful) outrage and is inherently political. The post is very informational and well-cited, but it's not the changing hearts and minds of those it needs to. Action has to be taken, but by people with the power to change things -- namely democratic leadership, who have the funds & influence (albeit dwindling). Do they understand the battlefield they're entering? I don't think so, as I think they're sticking to that same outrage strategy.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Of all the terrible attacks on the 1A, I find this one the most disturbing as it amounts to nothing less than mafia-style extortion: > The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports. > Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
• sepositus 2y ago
  I'm still scratching my head at how some people are surprised by this overreaction. It seems a lot of people think the current fawning over authoritarianism came out of a vacuum. All of the sudden a majority of America came out of stasis and flocked to the polls to elect a dictator.
  • dclowd9901 2y ago
    Well, if you look at it from the perspective of faithless reporting like that from Fox News and Newsmax, the information pipeline has been selling a narrative that the left has been on an authoritarian tear since Obama. The newscasts are chilling: every one of them for more than two decades has taken a position that the left is an existential threat to the United States. With that kind of context, it's really no wonder there's support from the right for an authoritarian leader. They honestly just think they're playing the democrats game and playing it better. It _is_ a bit odd there's a complete lack of reflection on some of these moves though, but I suppose so long as the current executive branch veers away from changing the second amendment and manages to carve out enough exceptions for their most ardent supporters, all's good from their standpoint.
    • sepositus 2y ago
      A lot of people don't like being told to what say/think/do. It turns out if you bully those people enough they elect a dictator. It wasn't and still isn't a surprise to me.
      • clipsy 2y ago
        Perhaps we made the mistake of thinking that the people who "don't like being told to what[sic] say/think/do" actually had something resembling principles rather than a petty and childish desire to dictate what others are allowed to say/think/do.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
• King-Aaron 2y ago
  It's all pretty cooked. It's honestly stunning to see how these cult-like followers have allowed themselves to be completely oblivious to what's going on. From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.
  • pfo32 2y ago
    Its cooked everywhere. Thank the Attention Economy. All sides are trapped by in a fight over finite Attention. Its like the world war but instead of land its Views/Clicks/Likes. Since Attention is a finite non growing pool the trap is set. One day some one gets all the fish and another its someone else. Anyone who has any sense wouldn't waste any energy being part of such a stupid game cause its eventually lose lose. So the game is of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid. Until all sides agree on a new Attention allocation mechanism everything shall remain cooked.
    • boroboro4 2y ago
      While I’m with you on attention economy I think it’s simplification of what’s going on: – we had very dysfunctional legislature for last 20+ years – quality of life is falling for majority of people This contributes to feeling of unfairness in the society which pushes authoritarian and populist ideas.
      • aprilthird2021 2y ago
        I hate that everywhere in the world when QoL falls people elect idiot authoritarians who make QoL worse
        • navane 2y ago
          It's almost as if there's a third thing going on that both drives QoL down, and authoritarians up, instead of one leading to the other.
          • 2y ago
• linktraveler 2y ago
  Nothing in this article actually makes a case for infringing upon the first amendment. "...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges." Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences? Should students who hate America be allowed to study here? Should employees who don't work be fired? Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits? If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment? You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for. The winning will continue. -2008: Obama -2012: Obama -2016: Hillary -2020: Biden -2024: Trump
  • SkipperCat 2y ago
    Where’s the due process? Executive orders for this stuff are not the way forward for a democracy to exist. We have laws, we should use them and let the judicial system work. You’d want the same for yourself if the roles were reversed.
  • knowaveragejoe 2y ago
    > You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for. A circus isn't effective, but it's entertaining at least.
    • linktraveler 2y ago
      I don't deny the circus. Establishing Government (perplexity): "No president has moved faster than Donald Trump in 2024 to appoint Cabinet members and agency heads. By November 23, 2024, just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump had announced nominees for all 15 executive agencies, far outpacing his first term and other recent presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who took nearly 40 days to reach similar milestones. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed Trump’s nominees at a faster rate compared to his first term and Biden’s early days in office." Illegal immigration: down to near 0 DOGE: Cut $260B in spending as of this post: https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/ Is there a counterpoint to this? Something Obama, Biden, Clinton, or GW Bush did in first 100 days?
• justanotheratom 2y ago
  "Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election" Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation? edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7 https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
  • strix_varius 2y ago
    All videos are edited.
    • justanotheratom 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • lostdog 2y ago
        You are linking to an LLM to support a factual point? And to Grok, an LLM controlled by a political operative?
        • justanotheratom 2y ago
          If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below. Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQddaddiudOg5_H29y4?dl=0&e=1&preview=Transcript+-+Face+the+Nation+(Broadcast).pdf&rlkey=b1h0smjicvqdaxua42jpm37cf&st=m0foe7dn https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd... MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders. Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQddaddiudOg5_H29y4?dl=0&e=1&preview=Transcript+-+60+Minutes+(Broadcast).pdf&rlkey=b1h0smjicvqdaxua42jpm37cf&st=m0foe7dn https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd... MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles. PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcripts-video-requested-by-fcc/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
• esalman 2y ago
  It started with the Free Palestine protesters. Tesla protesters are next. Citizens will be shipped to El Salvador, non-citizens to where they came from.
  • pmarreck 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • outside1234 2y ago
    Not if we protest en mass and all stick together. The thing that will kill us is if we obey in advance and don’t do these things.
    • esalman 2y ago
      As far as I can see nobody is sticking by the F1 students who are being deported.
      • facile3232 2y ago
        The deportations are just flashy cruelty to obscure everything else.
        • insane_dreamer 2y ago
          I think it's more of a typical tactic by authoritarian countries to do some high profile arrests with no recourse to strike fear into everyone's hearts that the same can happen to them and they'll have no recourse; which Ivy League grad students or faculty are going to join protests now?
        • esalman 2y ago
          It's also cruelty to folks who have absolutely nothing to defend themselves with. They are doing this just to deter people from practicing right to assembly and protest.
    • mbs159 2y ago
• reboot81 2y ago
  Watching the debacle from across the pond, wondering what everyone voting for Trump feared in the alternative. Kamala, extreme leftist? Guess youve never heard of USSR. And even not they were extreme.
  • dclowd9901 2y ago
    Right, but it's what their news outlets tell them is going on. They fully believed Kamala was a threat to their gun ownership, and her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.
    • LPisGood 2y ago
      That is all true, but it can’t be understated just how much people didn’t like her as a person. People didn’t really find her funny or charismatic. Obviously policy matters very little here; personality is king and many Americans love Trump’s personality. It’s why none of the policy arguments do much to sway anything. People like the man, and they can dislike his policies separately, but they only dislike the policies that really impact them personally in a negative way. They like the man enough to just support whatever less visible policies he has. I think race, gender, class, and culture have a lot to do with these preferences.
    • Jensson 2y ago
      > her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego. Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to, so if you look at leaders of countries most women are right wing. So if anything it is the left that has an issue with female leaders, not the right.
      • magicalist 2y ago
        > Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to If we define "leader" as executive or legislative positions at the federal or state level, definitely not true in the US, by a pretty large margin.
      • 2y ago
• anonu 2y ago
  I would like to think: what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There's an argument to be made that the US system of checks and balances will be stronger after all of this. We just haven't seen it in action, yet...
  • outer_web 2y ago
    Considering the impact of the immunity decision last year I'm thinking that adage isn't actually true.
  • Conscat 2y ago
    I believe the pendulum will swing back eventually, but I don't know anyone in my communities who believes minority groups will come out of this doing better than they were in 2020. The Democrat party is giving no indication that they intend to strengthen protection for minority groups, especially transexual people, when they are able to.
• linktraveler 2y ago
  Everyone who disagrees with the article gets flagged. You are not the "free speech" people you pretend to be.
  • fundad 2y ago
    lol, the article is now flagged because it spoke against dear leader.
  • SkipperCat 2y ago
    And this is fine because hacker news is just a web site and getting flagged may damage one’s ego but it doesn’t impact your freedom. Law firms being attacked by POTUS for their lawful actions, networks being frivolously sued and people being arrested without due process are the issue here.
    • linktraveler 2y ago
      [flagged]
• totallymike 2y ago
  See this other HN thread for concrete examples of how the climate is currently fucked. I genuinely can’t tell if the commenters are trying to be satirical, but the point seems moot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657
  • DangitBobby 2y ago
    I think you linked the wrong thread, this one is about DOGE.
    • totallymike 2y ago
      No, that’s the correct thread. It looks like the comments I saw have been deleted, but folks were accusing the author of the article of terrorism and anticipating the author’s arrest for having written it Edit* turns out the comments are still there, just flagged and dead.
• Robotchan66 2y ago
  [flagged]
• throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
• Animats 2y ago
  Recent win: US Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to New York Times vs. Sullivan. So less than four justices even thought it was worth looking at this issue again. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-casino-mogul-wynns-bid-challenge-ny-times-v-sullivan-2025-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-ca...
• whatever1 2y ago
  As a European for decades in the US, it is the first time in my life that I feel fear for expressing my opinions. Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?
  • _yrnr 2y ago
    > Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ? They claim to allow deleting the account (just the name, they keep the comments up), but in practice they ignore requests. Source: personal experience.
    • zmgsabst 2y ago
      Is that even legal for a CA based company?
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Not as of 2018 with the CCPA: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectiond https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectiond they have 45 days to respond and another 45 days to delete the info.
  • bediger4000 2y ago
    That's a feature many have begged for, for years.
  • k12sosse 2y ago
    Too late, they're already archived and you're better off buying that plane ticket North.
  • vasco 2y ago
    You can demand it under gdpr right to be forgotten and see where that gets you. Even being a US site they have to be compliant for EU users.
    • 2y ago
• mychael 2y ago
  [flagged]
• ta8645 2y ago
  It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration. "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences", "free speech does not apply to hate-speech", "we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation", It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
  • outside1234 2y ago
    Don’t both-sides this. 99% of the attacks have been under the Trump administration.
    • ta8645 2y ago
      Trump is obviously attacking free-speech, but the attacks have been going on by both sides. The examples I gave are _very_ prevalent and common, and not coming from the Trump camp. Very few people seem to actually believe in free speech, when it comes to protecting their political rivals... which is the only place the principle actually much matters.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • anonfordays 2y ago
      [flagged]
  • Conscat 2y ago
    > "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences" This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
    • ta8645 2y ago
      Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.
• giantg2 2y ago
  It's a little surprising to see the reactions. It's some sort social phenomenon. It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time. Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways). However, almost all of these actions have precedent in prior administrations. It would be nice if we can strengthen protections against abuses, but my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.
  • aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Deporting people for an op Ed has precedent in which administration?
    • russdill 2y ago
      Plenty, and it's all pretty ugly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
      • xboxnolifes 2y ago
        So you're saying it hasn't happened in 4-5 generations? While certainly precedent, it's understandable people are worried about it.
        • giantg2 2y ago
          Eh, similar stuff has happened more recently. Like Obama canceling Israeli nuclear scientists' visas so they couldn't attend a conference. Again, these things have gone on for a long time, just not at the scope/intensity we see now. The lower intensity instances are rarely reported on and gives people the impression that this is new.
        • russdill 2y ago
          No, I just gave one example. I could keep posting examples, but it keeps happening over and over again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... "The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 deemed immigrants who were anarchists or members of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian organizations that plan to overthrow the United States as deportable immigrants. Immigrants who were successors of any association of Communism, regardless of name changes, still fell under the deportable immigrants. Immigrants who advocated, taught, wrote, published in support for communism, a totalitarian dictatorship, and the overthrowing of the United States were also deportable immigrants."
• nimish 2y ago
  Ehh lots of things being said that were being forced unsaid before 2025 so I think you're wrong Krebs.
• amitport 2y ago
  Well, it didn't start in a vacuum.
• mmaunder 2y ago
  While I think many of us here abhor political content on HN, Brian has taken a data driven approach to this post and provided an excellent roundup of facts and events. Conservatives and liberals both would be well advised to read his excellent roundup. He is doing this at great personal cost to his readership, if the comments on his blog are anything to go by.
• grandempire 2y ago
  If the signal story mattered they would lead with the content of the messages. Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained. Since the story is reversed, and the public is not talking about what is said, I'm guessing nothing happened.
  • magicalist 2y ago
    > they would lead with the content of the messages They did, but with some information only described, but then they were called liars so they released the content that showed those accusing them of lying were in fact lying. > Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.
    • grandempire 2y ago
      > The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story. Yep. It’s the whole story.
  • collingreen 2y ago
    What a bizarre take. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.
• rcpt 2y ago
  > many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituent I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is
  • yubblegum 2y ago
    We need a new political party not beholden to a certain lobby. From my perspective (which spans decades) this has been a (somewhat barely) disguised pas de deux.
  • dragonwriter 2y ago
    > I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is They do and have been exploiting it for a while. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220587-democrats-town-halls-gop/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220... “House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year’s midterms. “A number of Democrats who ventured this month into GOP territory said they liked what they saw: anxious voters who are up in arms over both President Trump’s dismantling of the federal government and the reluctance of the majority Republicans to provide a check on executive power. “Encouraged by their experiences, Democrats say they not only intend to return to those battleground districts, they’re also eyeing plans to broaden their range in the weeks and months to come. The Democrats’ campaign arms, in some cases, are helping to coordinate the effort.”
    • CharlieDigital 2y ago
      I think we are severely underestimating what Democrats are up against here. A recent episode of This American Life Ten Things I Don't Want to Hate About You[0] gives just a absolutely mind bending look at just how bad the situation is with a subset of the American public. The synopsis is that the father in this family has been so taken by conspiracy theories that it's breaking apart a family. To settle things, he makes a $10k bet with his son over a series of 10 events he believes will absolutely happen in 2024. As the clock ticks over to 2025 and not a single prediction came true, he simply moves the goal posts and does not admit any wrong, even as his wife divorces him and his daughter becomes estranged. It's a showcase of how absolutely lost in the flood of actual fake news some Americans have become and it's scary because these folks that are divorced from reality are typically the highly motivated voter that actually goes out there and votes. My point here is that if you listen to this and think "Democrats have an opportunity", then you may not understand just how bad it is and that democracy is up against a cult. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/854/ten-things-i-dont-want-to-hate-about-you https://www.thisamericanlife.org/854/ten-things-i-dont-want-...
• gotoeleven 2y ago
  [flagged]
• harry8 2y ago
  Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files and really try to understand what was in them and why it was horrifying. Seems many people wanted to pretend they were nothing because it didn't suit their partisan narrative. We're seeing the same kinds of justification now just with different partisans. If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
  • Aurornis 2y ago
    > Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files Or we could skip the whataboutism that tries to go back to a prior administration, and instead focus on the current administration’s actions which are demonstrably far worse.
    • harry8 2y ago
      What about we stand on _principle_. What about we criticise and oppose /all/ transgressions of that principle. What about we all do it more loudly for whatever tribe we have some loose membership of and don't excuse it because it is politically expedient. That's whataboutism nowadays.
  • danavar 2y ago
    Exactly. Let's not forget the real attempts at the government's internet censorship of previous administrations. Nobody seemed to care about that then. Like give me a break. The previous admin took steps towards censoring real information that would be politically harmful to them, and now we're supposed to feel bad about the current admin who is taking productive steps against antagonist agents within our country? I get that the law in this country is pliable and a nuanced subject but I'd rather deal with the latter issue - where our government is challenging the boundaries of the 1st amendment against our own enemies rather than their own people lol
    • croes 2y ago
      Let me get this straight what the previous government did was wrong but what they now do is right because it’s against antagonist agents? Sorry but that sounds like out of the fascist playbook. They all just fought against „enemies“, but they decided who was declared an enemy. In the end everybody who said anything against them was declared an enemy.
• k12sosse 2y ago
  I don't think things are going to get any better before they're really, really much worse. Nobody's going to do anything until someone does way too much. This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.
• move-on-by 2y ago
  If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration. As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up. I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.
  • selfhoster 2y ago
    There's always something scary for those whose team lost the last election.
    • semicolon_storm 2y ago
      And treating politics like team sports is the root of the problem
  • OccamsMirror 2y ago
    Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet. Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.
    • strogonoff 2y ago
      It used to be that you had to mingle with people, and if you had a particularly crazy take on reality there was a dynamic where 80% of people around you IRL would not really take you seriously because respected people didn’t—especially if you were otherwise not appearing to be a socially well-integrated and productive person. This had a chilling effect on extreme views and helped somewhat bring the outliers in, so to speak. Now, even if you never leave your house, cannot hold a job or a relationship, you can find any number of people who share your extreme views, and the more extreme the views the tighter the community (due to justified exclusion IRL). Naturally, it did not take too long for other people exploit that newly found dynamic in context of democracy and use tech to manipulate such people with fringe views for own short-term gains.
    • h0l0cube 2y ago
• facile3232 2y ago
  I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it. As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.
  • lblume 2y ago
    Free speech should be considered a non-negotiable human right. You can't just trade those off against each other. The distinction into "materially meaningful" rights in my opinion just shows how easily both types of rights are taken for granted until noticeably revoked.
    • facile3232 2y ago
      It's not even a coherent concept the way westerners use it. I would be much happier if we called it "acceptable speech" or something to acknowledge you can't call for dismembering your Tutsi cockroach neighbor. Idk why, maybe I'm just being sensitive. "Free speech" as a right seems pretty useless without material rights. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What does that even look like? But we can trace all this crappy formulation of civics to the brain rot that is worshiping the enlightenment and founding fathers. Why is this still a thing in 2025? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to care about Jefferson or Locke or the actual basis of our society, Hobbes. We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.
      • cvz 2y ago
        > We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow. What, exactly, do you think a right even is, if not an agreement that something cannot be done to people or cannot be taken away from them?
• siliconc0w 2y ago
  I think a lot of people convinced themselves he was going to be as restrained as in Trump 1 and we'd get a fairly standard pro-crypto, pro-business, tax cutting Republican. Instead we've elected a mad king.
• webninja 2y ago
  He’s helping make the left care about free speech again. Something they wanted to continue censoring.
  • kacesensitive 2y ago
    Ah yes, nothing screams “free speech hero” like a guy who tried to censor the press, punish critics, and begged Twitter to silence his enemies.
    • gblargg 2y ago
      This is called suppressing "disinformation" in the other circles.
    • webninja 2y ago
      You completely missed what I was saying.
• indus 2y ago
  Maybe the T-800 comes back reprogrammed to save us. He is feeling out of place, his stock is down, his popularity has tanked. He probably got what he wants from the current admin. Hope it doesn’t get late.
• kopirgan 2y ago
  Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught. If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment. If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
  • vvpan 2y ago
    Who invented cancel culture?
    • galaxyLogic 2y ago
      What is "cancel culture"?
      • vvpan 2y ago
        Better question, I agree.
  • Boltgolt 2y ago
    Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist
    • kopirgan 2y ago
      That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason. As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
• chriscrisby 2y ago
  This is partisan garbage, I’ve been in infosec circles long enough to see democrats always get a pass for doing the same thing republicans do. Selective outrage is fake outrage.
  • knowaveragejoe 2y ago
    False equivalency works!
  • danavar 2y ago
    +1
  • gblargg 2y ago
    Did Krebs comment on government suppressing discussion during COVID? The article reads like suddenly there are attacks on freedom of speech. It's been raging over the past four years.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • DangitBobby 2y ago
    It's amazing, as a kid I always wondered how fascism could take hold in a country, in history books they seemed to lay out the steps so clearly it should be easy to see and coming and stop it. Now that it's happening here, I now wonder how countries ever managed to keep fascism at bay. All it really takes is an unscrupulous public in love with its own opinions, and someone with a big voice who will tell them comforting fictions.
    • chriscrisby 2y ago
      As yes the tyranny of small Government
      • DangitBobby 2y ago
        If you read TFA then it's not possible you think it's only about "small government" (whether you agree or not). Small government is a cute euphemism for intentionally turning everything to shit, though, keep it up.
• willmadden 2y ago
  This submission violates the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • jjulius 2y ago
    >Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
  • refusingsalt 2y ago
    i guess it is off topic.
• mayrio 2y ago
  This is a case of things must get better before they get worse… Basic right in america have been declining for years now. And now its happening all at once. The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation. This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.
  • croes 2y ago
    Don’t you mean get worse before they get better? Most of the time these means people getting killed. The human rights resolution needed the terror of WW2
• galaxyLogic 2y ago
  How do you recognize a fascist, or whatever you call people who want less rather than more democracy? I think a good rule is this: They won't agree to disagree with anybody. Why? Because they have to suppress free speech of others, to gain and stay in power.
• travisgriggs 2y ago
  Back and forth. Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again." Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion. I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.
  • areyouliving 2y ago
    It's true, but they're victims of mass manipulation by omnipresent media. They subject themselves to it, but it's hardly by choice when there are thousands of people spending trillions of dollars and millions of working hours to indoctrinate them.
• Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
• jari_mustonen 2y ago
  Free speech has been in retreat for years. The previous administration just targeted a different flavor of 'offending speech' and cracked down hard on it. As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas. I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
  • croes 2y ago
    There is no free speech without limits unless you think speech as such has no effect. Otherwise the speech of one can silent the speech of orhers.
• strogonoff 2y ago
  If using Signal to discuss a bombing was done to evade FOIA, how many other cases do American citizens remain unaware of (and probably can never learn about)?
• fuckyah 2y ago
  [dead]
• 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  It's called Project 2025. It's designed to destroy the checks and balances of the US government. They aren't hiding it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_au... What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.
• seek 2y ago
  > In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger. `Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS. Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Unless a lawsuit is settled with either a ruling or an admission of guilt in a settlement, it is a "claim". It's the same reason news articles always use "alleged".
  • croes 2y ago
    Because that’s the claim of the lawsuit.
  • alsaaro 2y ago
    Even if true this is irrelevant, the first amendment is agnostic to truth or good propriety.
  • benmmurphy 2y ago
    I think these lawsuits with large damages against media companies are going in a bad direction. But this also includes the lawsuit against Alex Jones and the Covington kids lawsuit but I don't think you will find many people that have some kind of consistent principal when dealing with this. They will just have some magic rule that will mean the law suit against Alex Jones is good and Trump's law suit is bad or vice versa. There is even a similar thing going with this list of 1A violations from the current administration. Similar things went on with the last administration but I didn't see a Kreb's summary post but maybe I missed it.
• bufio 2y ago
  Perhaps being in favour of free expression is finally about to stop being unfashionable and offensive.
• kleton 2y ago
  I remember when the last administration jailed Douglass Mackey for tweeting
  • guelo 2y ago
    He had a fair trial and a 12 member jury of his peers agreed that he was suppressing the vote.
    • kleton 2y ago
      I have a feeling if the current administration had a problem with your social media posts, maybe you said something about Tesla that they could construe as supporting the current protests and/or vandalism, and similarly venue-shopped for a federal court, say East Texas, (using the U.S. v Mackey precedent to claim jurisdiction because some fiber carrying data might go through it) where the 12 jurors would be on team red, you would not feel like it would be a fair trial if you got convicted.
      • DangitBobby 2y ago
        Do you think trying to mislead people with fake signs and numbers so their vote doesn't get counted is a thing people should be allowed to do by law? What about fraud?
        • kleton 2y ago
          As a juror, I would expect such a trial to at least be able to produce a single victim that could testify on the stand that they got deceived before I would vote guilty.
          • DangitBobby 2y ago
            I'm not following your reasoning. No one falling for it means they didn't commit a crime, or it's evidence they weren't really trying to deceive anyone? I don't think federal crimes have to have a single "victim" for it to be a crime, though obviously I'm not lawyer.
• FilosofumRex 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • amitport 2y ago
    "Trump is merely doing what he has been paid to do by pro-Israeli zionist lobby - who apparently were the highest bidders" The concept of blaming the Jews on everything wrong in one's country is not new, and it never ends well.
    • FilosofumRex 2y ago
      [dead]
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • amitport 2y ago
        I sense a lot Jewsphobia from you. Miriam Adelson is an American who happen to be Jewish, and has many many disagreements with the state of Israel. Are you going to classify everyone who does not seek the destruction of Israel as the pro-Israel Zionist lobby?. A bit Freudian of you to associate some Jewish woman some shadow Kabal. Jewish being targeted is like canary in a mine, never ends well.
        • FilosofumRex 2y ago
          There is a whole book written on the corrosive nature of the Israeli lobby on US foreign policy by Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer. A shorter working paper version of it is . "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-011, March 2006. As for Adelson, just look up her Wikipedia... she owns Israel Hayom, Israel's largest newspaper, and is a major supporter of current Israeli government and has advocated for explosion of Palestinians from Gaza, annexation of WestBank and paid for expansion of illegal Settlements. She conditioned her financial support of Trump on moving US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Covering up for war crimes and war criminals never ends well, either.
• bufferoverflow 2y ago
  "President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage." Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening. The rest of the article has similar lies.
• 1970-01-01 2y ago
  Flagging Krebs is certainly a choice. This was the correct choice, IMHO. I don't like it but I understand this topic will very quickly attract full political discussions and Godwin's law. Go somewhere else for that.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• mrbluecoat 2y ago
  The 22nd Amendment is also under attack: https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22nd-amendment-efba31be02ee96b0ef68b17fe89b7578 https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...
• braebo 2y ago
  Was this mirrored anywhere?
• southernplaces7 2y ago
  I'd love to know who the assholes who flag perfectly relevant, useful and well-sourced and debate-worthy posts like these are? Is there perhaps some coterie of Trump-supporting, Musk-loving orangutans on HN that come out of the woodwork selectively and explicitly to flag content that's in no way outside moderation standards? That aside, the very fact that random readers, for entirely opaque, possibly idiotic and mendacious reasons of their own, can just flag any post is absurd on a site like this that likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being open to broad, reasoned discussion of many, possibly controversial subjects.