3 ms·
Nope. This guy is wrong and XKCD got it right. It is the enemies of freedom that want to blur the line between the govt stopping you from speaking out and a com
by dmfdmf 13y ago
Nope. This guy is wrong and XKCD got it right. It is the enemies of freedom that want to blur the line between the govt stopping you from speaking out and a company that stops you from using their private resources to express your unwanted opinion.
Go back and listen to Snowden's SXSW talk last month. He makes exactly the same point that govt spying and govt actions are what need to be carefully prescribed by the constitution because the govt has the ability to take away your rights, throw you in jail and silence you without recourse. Google, Yahoo, et. al. do not have such power.
If HN kicks someone off this forum, no rights have been violated -- even if the reason for the ejection is unjust it still is not a First Amendment issue.
- dalke 13y agoI think people equate "First Amendment" with "Free Speech", without remembering that the First includes other rights, including the right of peaceful assembly. This has long been interpreted to include the right of association. That is, under the same First Amendment, HN is free to kick someone off of this forum, and the government has no right to say otherwise. (With some very limited exceptions related to civil rights laws, and even then only because Y-combinator is a business.)
- makomk 13y agoOn the other hand, people also have a right to criticise HN and other forum owners for who they choose to kick off their forum. This xkcd and other arguments like it are meant to get people to dismiss such criticism automatically because site owners have the right to do it, completely ignoring the issue of whether they were right to do it. Good for site owners, bad for people who rely on the goodwill of sites run by others - and guess who has more influence on public perception?
- dalke 13y agoI think that's on the same hand. ;)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]