undefined | Better HN

0 pointszfg0y ago0 comments

> This is not a 1st amendment issue.

It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker.

If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

0 comments

rdtsc0y ago

> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery

Government does, but other entities don’t.

I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here.

The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court.

It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.

collingreen0y ago

You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power.

Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

mingus880y ago

The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside.

Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger.

That’s late stage capitalism.

thayne0y ago

It can be both.

The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.

lxgr0y ago

That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States.

In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself.

Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.

1 more reply

rdtsc0y ago

> It can be both

It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.

brookst0y ago

Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?

1 more reply

mulmen0y ago

> The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power.

The entire First Amendment is one sentence:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.

1 more reply

MindBeams0y ago

It is a capitalism issue.

But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.

kmeisthax0y ago

If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rdtsc0y ago

> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery

Government does, but other entities don’t.

I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here.

The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court.

It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.

collingreen0y ago

Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

mingus880y ago

The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside.

Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger.

That’s late stage capitalism.

thayne0y ago

It can be both.

lxgr0y ago

That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States.

Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.

1 more reply

rdtsc0y ago

> It can be both

It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.

brookst0y ago

Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?

1 more reply

mulmen0y ago

> The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power.

The entire First Amendment is one sentence:

Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.

1 more reply

MindBeams0y ago

It is a capitalism issue.

But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.

kmeisthax0y ago

If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse