4 ms·

This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance. Such censorship is passed by elected legislators, interpr

This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance. Such censorship is passed by elected legislators, interpreted by an independent judiciary, and subject to appeal (which NordVPN has already begun). From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. But it ignores liberty, proportionality and limits on power. Democratic erosion is how governments today expand surveillance, blocking and platform obligations while still technically obeying democratic rules

nathan_compton 10mo ago
I think this is a misunderstanding: > This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance. Founding documents don't do shit. What one needs is a culture which is perpetually hostile towards power. All problems of power are social problems. No law, founding document, principle is going to prevent people from doing stuff if they want to do it.
- pixelready 10mo ago
  Yeah, for France just compare reactions to these measures to the marching in the streets and general striking behavior you get from austerity measures, and the subsequent backpedaling by authorities. I can only conclude the average person there either just isn’t aware of this, doesn’t understand the implications, or doesn’t value these sorts of digital access erosions in the same way.
- observationist 10mo ago
  You also need the formal mechanisms by which rule of law is upheld, protected against mob rule, and has a feedback loop in which course correction is possible. A culture hostile to power isn't stable without stable principles and a leviathan by which those principles persist, which is the whole point of the American experiment. The founding documents laid out a system intended to address the problems of the era, persist into the future, and adapt to the needs of each generation while protecting and maximizing the liberty of each individual. If all you've got is uniform hostility to power, you've lost the plot and won't ever get past small scale tribalism.
  - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
    >all you've got is uniform hostility to power What is the evidence of that? I see a lot of people wanting a) more centralized power and b) who controls it
  - nathan_compton 10mo ago
    I think its reasonable to argue that the founding documents have become subverted by changes in the political structure of society. From this point of view a too rigid adherence to the founding documents is just as problematic as a too weak one. In the end, it is the citizens which make the difference, not the structures. Any structure put into place will face relentless pressure from those who want power and citizens must be ready to present relentless counter-pressure.
dyauspitr 10mo ago
A lot of good the founding documents are doing in the US these days.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
hypeatei 10mo ago
The U.S. constitution doesn't do much on its own, though. Sure, you might be able to win a case because of it, but there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning. Like a sibling comment said: you need a culture that rejects this stuff and punishes it quickly.
- CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
  Without disagreeing with your general sentiment, I would point out (and you can argue over the magnitude/sufficiency of them)- >there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning. Sixth and eighth amendments.
  - pixl97 10mo ago
    I mean, no not really. If you quickly go to trail without putting your homework in you're going to get your ass handed to you and sit under a jail for the rest of your life regardless of your actual guilt. Statistical analysis of how the law actually works is far more valuable than what the law says.
pif 10mo ago
> From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. Actually, that is democracy, full stop! Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest. with a pinch of smark, I dare to add: 1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist. 2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best.
- betaby 10mo ago
  > discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be I don't remember any discussions about that. It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'.
  - pif 10mo ago
    > It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy' Both of which make a lot of sense. And the contrarian view is always expressed as a matter of "privacy", as if remote privacy had ever existed before a couple decades ago. Laws must be discussed based on their intentions and their expected result. Inventing dogmas doesn't help societal advancement.
- SR2Z 10mo ago
  As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like. "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.
  - 10mo ago
jmyeet 10mo ago
You have too much faith in a 250 year old document. In the last ~5 years we've seen this Supreme Court, despite their alleged "textualist" or "originalist" philosophy, just completley invent things out of thin air. Three examples spring to mind: 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution? 2. The "history and traditions text". This is simply the idea that if the political actors on the bench can find (or, in some cses, invent) something that happenned or was "normal" 250 years ago then it is legal precedent. That doesn't seem to apply to abortion however. Benjamin Franklin published instructions on at-home abortions [1]. How is that not "history and tradition"? 3. The court completely invented presidential immunity out of thin air in a country that rebelled against a monarch. "What's good for companies and their owners?" tends to be a pretty good predictor for what our Supreme Court does. What we're seeing in France and elsewhere is the dying breath of neoliberalism. Companies are successfully using the courts worldwide to erode individual rights in the interests of profits. The Constitution doesn't protect you from this. The EU's defenses against this sort of thing seem to be eroding, if they existed at all. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank...
- josefritzishere 10mo ago
  10/10 best comment.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  > 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution? That is a wildly inaccurate take on the "major questions doctrine". You are actually describing SCOTUS power to determine if laws are "constitutional", which was decided (by SCOTUS) in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison). 2 and 3 are well-made points.
uncletaco 10mo ago
Hi. You cannot log on to porn sites in Alabama which is subject to those documents. I think it’s crazy that you’re this naive.
- NoSalt 10mo ago
  Not sure about Alabama, but accessing porn sites in Virginia (where they are currently banned without adult verification) is easy. Just use the TOR browser, and it works just fine. No need for expensive VPNs.
  - uncletaco 9mo ago
    It’s not about circumventing the bans, it’s about the bans being in place to begin with.
josefritzishere 10mo ago
Notably the USA is experiencing a severe case of "democratic erosion" right now.
llm_nerd 10mo ago
I honestly can't tell whether this is satire. America's founding documents are effectively toilet paper at this point, and have been eroded to the point of being farce. America has a beholden press, a captured media, is governed by unchecked plutocrats, has a farcically busted justice system, and has the foot on the neck of Americans. Having Americans make proclamations at this point -- while their leader is openly threatening militarily annexing actual democracies that rate higher on every metric -- is simply incredible. Every American needs to stop the online rhetoric about its once glory and spend some time doing some introspection, because Jesus Christ, this is ridiculous.
wmf 10mo ago
Do you need pirate live streams that badly?
raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
It’s not ancient history that the FCC threatened to take away ABCs broadcast license because Trump didn’t like what was said about Kirk or that public school teachers and college professors were fired over Kirk.

nathan_compton 10mo ago

I think this is a misunderstanding: > This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance. Founding documents don't do shit. What one needs is a culture which is perpetually hostile towards power. All problems of power are social problems. No law, founding document, principle is going to prevent people from doing stuff if they want to do it.

pixelready 10mo ago
Yeah, for France just compare reactions to these measures to the marching in the streets and general striking behavior you get from austerity measures, and the subsequent backpedaling by authorities. I can only conclude the average person there either just isn’t aware of this, doesn’t understand the implications, or doesn’t value these sorts of digital access erosions in the same way.
observationist 10mo ago
You also need the formal mechanisms by which rule of law is upheld, protected against mob rule, and has a feedback loop in which course correction is possible. A culture hostile to power isn't stable without stable principles and a leviathan by which those principles persist, which is the whole point of the American experiment. The founding documents laid out a system intended to address the problems of the era, persist into the future, and adapt to the needs of each generation while protecting and maximizing the liberty of each individual. If all you've got is uniform hostility to power, you've lost the plot and won't ever get past small scale tribalism.
- CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
  >all you've got is uniform hostility to power What is the evidence of that? I see a lot of people wanting a) more centralized power and b) who controls it
- nathan_compton 10mo ago
  I think its reasonable to argue that the founding documents have become subverted by changes in the political structure of society. From this point of view a too rigid adherence to the founding documents is just as problematic as a too weak one. In the end, it is the citizens which make the difference, not the structures. Any structure put into place will face relentless pressure from those who want power and citizens must be ready to present relentless counter-pressure.

dyauspitr 10mo ago

A lot of good the founding documents are doing in the US these days.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

hypeatei 10mo ago

The U.S. constitution doesn't do much on its own, though. Sure, you might be able to win a case because of it, but there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning. Like a sibling comment said: you need a culture that rejects this stuff and punishes it quickly.

CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
Without disagreeing with your general sentiment, I would point out (and you can argue over the magnitude/sufficiency of them)- >there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning. Sixth and eighth amendments.
- pixl97 10mo ago
  I mean, no not really. If you quickly go to trail without putting your homework in you're going to get your ass handed to you and sit under a jail for the rest of your life regardless of your actual guilt. Statistical analysis of how the law actually works is far more valuable than what the law says.

pif 10mo ago

> From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. Actually, that is democracy, full stop! Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest. with a pinch of smark, I dare to add: 1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist. 2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best.

betaby 10mo ago
> discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be I don't remember any discussions about that. It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'.
- pif 10mo ago
  > It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy' Both of which make a lot of sense. And the contrarian view is always expressed as a matter of "privacy", as if remote privacy had ever existed before a couple decades ago. Laws must be discussed based on their intentions and their expected result. Inventing dogmas doesn't help societal advancement.
SR2Z 10mo ago
As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like. "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.
- 10mo ago

jmyeet 10mo ago

You have too much faith in a 250 year old document. In the last ~5 years we've seen this Supreme Court, despite their alleged "textualist" or "originalist" philosophy, just completley invent things out of thin air. Three examples spring to mind: 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution? 2. The "history and traditions text". This is simply the idea that if the political actors on the bench can find (or, in some cses, invent) something that happenned or was "normal" 250 years ago then it is legal precedent. That doesn't seem to apply to abortion however. Benjamin Franklin published instructions on at-home abortions [1]. How is that not "history and tradition"? 3. The court completely invented presidential immunity out of thin air in a country that rebelled against a monarch. "What's good for companies and their owners?" tends to be a pretty good predictor for what our Supreme Court does. What we're seeing in France and elsewhere is the dying breath of neoliberalism. Companies are successfully using the courts worldwide to erode individual rights in the interests of profits. The Constitution doesn't protect you from this. The EU's defenses against this sort of thing seem to be eroding, if they existed at all. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank...

josefritzishere 10mo ago
10/10 best comment.
IAmBroom 10mo ago
> 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution? That is a wildly inaccurate take on the "major questions doctrine". You are actually describing SCOTUS power to determine if laws are "constitutional", which was decided (by SCOTUS) in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison). 2 and 3 are well-made points.

uncletaco 10mo ago

Hi. You cannot log on to porn sites in Alabama which is subject to those documents. I think it’s crazy that you’re this naive.

NoSalt 10mo ago
Not sure about Alabama, but accessing porn sites in Virginia (where they are currently banned without adult verification) is easy. Just use the TOR browser, and it works just fine. No need for expensive VPNs.
- uncletaco 9mo ago
  It’s not about circumventing the bans, it’s about the bans being in place to begin with.

josefritzishere 10mo ago

Notably the USA is experiencing a severe case of "democratic erosion" right now.

llm_nerd 10mo ago

I honestly can't tell whether this is satire. America's founding documents are effectively toilet paper at this point, and have been eroded to the point of being farce. America has a beholden press, a captured media, is governed by unchecked plutocrats, has a farcically busted justice system, and has the foot on the neck of Americans. Having Americans make proclamations at this point -- while their leader is openly threatening militarily annexing actual democracies that rate higher on every metric -- is simply incredible. Every American needs to stop the online rhetoric about its once glory and spend some time doing some introspection, because Jesus Christ, this is ridiculous.

wmf 10mo ago

Do you need pirate live streams that badly?

raw_anon_1111 10mo ago

It’s not ancient history that the FCC threatened to take away ABCs broadcast license because Trump didn’t like what was said about Kirk or that public school teachers and college professors were fired over Kirk.