Hacker News Reader

Comment by unreal37 | Hacker News Reader

Serious question. This article seems to be about censorship and the First Amendment. The opening paragraph equates this to a magazine being shut down and the printing presses seized. But I don't think this hip-hop blog was saying something the government wanted to stop. I don't get why the prevalent "bad thing" the government did is being called censorship.

Isn't the real story the government put a company out of business for no reason? They took a "top 10" website in a category and shut it down for a year, allowing their competitors an unfair advantage. No due process, no communication, not even a case number. They picked a random company and put it out of business.

I guess that's not protected by the constitution.

View on HN

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment

We abandoned the plain meaning of the constitution a long, long time ago.

Sadly.

The point is that under the First Amendment, the government shouldn't be able to do this for any reason (aside from the usual "fire in a crowded theater" or "disclosing state secrets" kinds of exceptions). Basically, if only "speech criticizing the government" were protected by the First Amendment, then the government could just claim "but this wasn't really criticism". So the Founders made the First Amendment broader than that.

And under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, taking away property without due process is forbidden.

A few years I heard a radio interview with a prominent rap artist (I forgot who) who said something like:

There's some evidence around that the government does consider rap and hip-hop to be, in a variety of cases, a potential threat on the order of political speech. In particular, a number of artists have ongoing files with the FBI.

The supposed reason is that if you had to pick one artform with the highest potential to start widespread political action in a short time, it would probably be music. And one of the demographics that presents a significant potential political threat to established order (ie large-scale city riots) it is the audience for rap and hip hop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com