Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

> The First Amendment protects both GitHub’s right to host that code, and Professor Green’s right to publish (here republish) it on GitHub so he and others can use it for teaching, for further study, and for development of the technology.

Yeah it proyects it against the government. Everybody else is still free to sue, take down, deny access, whatever.

View on HN

AFAIK the code was taken down in response to a government request, so this was a clear First Amedment violation.

By that interpretation, any takedown under sanctions law would be considered a first amendment violation. Which I believe the courts have already rejected.

If the government doesn't like your criticism of their policies, can they simply sanction you to disable your free speech? Where does the line go?

So host it in a different country?

But who wants to do that other than the government? And it was removed directly because of government sanctions. I understand that the first ammendment is poorly understood with regard to private companies and hosting content online, but in this case the first ammendment is applicable.

Does the first amendment protect against treaties the US has signed with other countries requiring the government to take action or violate the treaty?

Depends on who you ask. The general feeling in Europe is that treaties signed by the USA (or Russia, China and many more) are basically worthless. I mean, when does USA ever ratify treaties into (federal) law, or into the constitution for that matter?

Republicans would say "hell no it's our sovereignty", Democrats "maybe", the American courts: "maybe but probably not"

> […] when does USA ever ratify treaties into (federal) law […]

Never. Or immediately, depending on your perspective. Either way, there’s no need for further paperwork.

> Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation […]

— https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

Well, it could be seen as accessory to many sort of frauds. But to what extent would that be more accessory than using a car for example - and looking for the car manufacturer responsability?

Sanctions compel everyone to take sanctioned content down - not only the gov't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com