Thats how democracy dies. It doesn't have to change it explicitly, it has to incite tact, and leave a trail. Every day, we are making history. If we do not speak, then the future will think we weren't talking.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14338291 and marked it off-topic.
It should be a motivator to hold the agency accountable, to get it to do the job for which it was created. Write. Call. Show up at meetings. Pressure them back in line.
Personally I agree with FCC's stand and keeping governments and elites who want everyone else to pay more for their "fair use" out of the equation looks like a good thing for me. I don't have time to comment on that document because I agree with administration.
That is not how democracy should work. We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument.
> We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument.
The last part is really the point though, isn't it?
"Free speech" is continually misused, in the sense that people expect everyone else to listen to mad ramblings. Presenting a "counterpoint" (on whichever platform/venue/outlet) in the quest to be fair when the original point is simply a fact isn't fair coverage, it's pandering to lunacy.
Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring.
If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead].
[1]: https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-...
You are flat out WRONG.
Free speech exists for all sort of speech including mocking, ridiculing and being outright stupid and retarded too.
> Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
Free speech has nothing to do with policy, government, state or laws. It is an independent right that exists for no specific purpose other than itself.
And in this case it appears to be "free speech for you as long as you voice your support for me".
I am pretty sure HN crowd will hound anyone who claims to agree with FCC on this point which I do.
What would have something to do with democracy, then?