←back to thread

219 points helloworld | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.227s | source
Show context
zfg ◴[] No.43511459[source]
[flagged]
replies(3): >>43511811 #>>43512167 #>>43513702 #
mingus88 ◴[] No.43512167[source]
This is not a 1st amendment issue.

This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life.

Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp.

We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk dystopia and none of the flying cars or bio-enhancements.

replies(3): >>43512184 #>>43512531 #>>43514738 #
ysofunny ◴[] No.43512531[source]
it's a 1st ammendment issue

in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart

because citizen-president Trump is a power bully

but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself

it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land

replies(3): >>43512663 #>>43512667 #>>43513008 #
cosmotic ◴[] No.43512663[source]
First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue
replies(1): >>43512680 #
zfg ◴[] No.43512680[source]
It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does.

If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

replies(1): >>43512728 #
mulmen ◴[] No.43512728[source]
> It is protection by the state.

It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

replies(1): >>43512886 #
zfg ◴[] No.43512886[source]
And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

replies(3): >>43513020 #>>43516001 #>>43518278 #
mulmen ◴[] No.43518278[source]
The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds.

If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

replies(1): >>43519088 #
zfg ◴[] No.43519088[source]
Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

replies(1): >>43520055 #
1. longdustytrail ◴[] No.43520055[source]
An interesting precedent for sure but it’s worth noting that a company tried and failed to use this precedent to argue that spam filtering is a violation of the first amendment