Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They are also already covered by existing laws

The First Amendment supersedes law by determining whether it can be law at all, so whether it's covered by "law" is actually only half the story.

> The examples you brought up as arguments to why free speech can't be absolute

I started with deliberately stupid examples to make my point: Free Speech was always clearly limited, by necessity.

> it's pointing how its protections are rendered moot

That in itself is debatable. What evidence do you bring that this is somehow worse than it used to be? It used to be the case that, to get _any_ significant speech, you had to get your work published. Now you can just shoot it off on Twitter, Reddit, HN, take your pick.



>I started with deliberately stupid examples to make my point: Free Speech was always clearly limited, by necessity.

Which is neither here, nor there. Conspiracy to commit murder, as per the "mob boss gives an order example" would always be illegal regarless of our "free speech" stance, and the First Amendment didn't come into play determining whether that "[could] be law at all".

It was rather the other way around: the First Amendment was drafted with the certainty that such a thing isn't about free speech and will always be illegal.


> It was rather the other way around: the First Amendment was drafted with the certainty that such a thing isn't about free speech and will always be illegal.

This isn’t really backing up your point that the First Amendment isn’t sufficiently protecting free speech.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: