Hacker News Reader

Comment by Maursault | Hacker News Reader

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. No other entity or group is bound by the 1st Amendment. And this is by the Founders' design, because extending the 1st Amendment to all entities and groups would in fact limit freedom.

View on HN

Belief in free speech is an ideology. The US Constitution's first amendment is a restriction against the US government in passing laws restricting speech. The two are not the same thing.

Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither can the ideas.

There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new, tough land half a world away - it was worth the travail/travel (same root word) for that freedom.

The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech." Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right? The Founders' intention of the Bill of Rights is only and only can be a restriction on what the government can and can't do in regards to an individual's freedoms. If the Founders were here today, they would insist that the 1st Amendment does not extend to limit the freedom od business or private citizens. I can censor you and you can censor me, and it is is our right and our freedom to do so. The government, and only the government, can not. This is intentional. Don't like Twitter censuring you? Start your own company that promotes your own political ideals. You are free to do so.

You will find countless quotes such as the following among the founding fathers: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." - Thomas Jefferson

To imagine they would see the current scenario where the government and a handful of corporations are working in cahoots to suppress expression + drive self censorship on a scale unlike anything in our history, and go "Yip, working as intended." is just disingenuous.

> is just disingenuous

I strongly disagree. And Jefferson was not talking about ochlocracy, which is itself tyrannical. You think the Founders were unaware of commerce and business during their era? Why did they then intentionally limit government with the Bill of Rights, and not also have it restrict business and private citizens? Because doing so would create less freedom and less security.

Look at the text of the Amendment:

     Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

So you see, we don't need to extend the First Amendment to restrict corporations or private citizens, because they do not and can not make laws. Only Congress can make laws. What we have is a non-sequitor. The First Amendment, logically and rationally, can not possibly apply to companies like Twitter.

So if you do want to limit corporations with Free Speech, you can so so, that is what the Tenth Amendment is for.

Please stop assaulting the Bill of Rights with not very well thought out and fundamentally self-entitled and capricious whims. Only 2/3rd majority of Congress or of the state legislatures can change the Constitution. It is set as a high standard intentionally. Try to understand why. Because it's not about you and what you want, it is about the interests of everyone altogether and not everyone shares your shallow opinions. The Founders certainly didn't.

>> Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right?

Did you seriously compared free speech to child pornography? Why not add murder and stealing in the mix as well, that will make your point stand out even more.

Free speech is much larger than just the first amendment (if you can believe it, some people actually live outside the USA).

It is perfectly consistent to believe in free speech, support the first amendment, and also want platforms like Twitter to allow for the free speech of it's users.

Do you think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong?

Yes, absolutely. But it is not constitutionally resolvable.

Mucking with the Constitution, such as extending the 1st Amendment beyond restriction of government, such as suspending habeas corpus, such as fulfilling 5th Amendment requirements with secret trials, such as adding an interpretation of self-defense to the 2nd Amendment that the Founders debated and intentionally left out, is all really very dangerous because these alterations are effectively diluting our freedoms until they become unrecognizable, and it begins to look like conservative agenda to dismantle government to allow those with money and rich corporations to exploit masses of individuals without limitations.

Considering Justice Scalia's unnecessary and unsupportable and overreaching (without 2/3rds majority of Congress or the state legislatures) reinterpretation of the 2nd to include self-defense fundamentally changes the Founders intent from a selfless right to stand against tyranny to a selfish and redundant right to protect your flatscreen TV. This was nothing less than vandalism, and we are all less safe for it. It is the same with Guantanamo and the suspension of habeas. This did us no favors and reduced the rights of every citizen. It is the same thing with killing Anwar al-Awlaki (let's be clear tho, he was evil), a US citizen, without a public indictment by a Grand Jury nor a public trial, really screws everyone and is a step towards changing our world into Kafka's nightmare, and worse, because we're teetering in the edge of widespread ecosystem collapse due to the activities of big business. Once we change so much of the framework, our government will collapse, and along with it, our individual freedoms, and the slow murder of Earth will be put into overdrive. Then we'll all be dead.

So let's work out problems like the Hollywood Blacklist without mucking with the Bill of Rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com