How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/03/how-each-pillar-of-the-1st-amendment-is-under-attack/

by todsacerdoti • 1 year ago

1176 744 1 year ago

tombert8• 1 year ago

I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us. I mean, I get it, bad shit needs to be reported on, the Trump admin does a lot of bad shit, it makes sense, but it's just extremely tiring.

I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around).

I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.

Afforess3• 1 year ago

Voting is the minimum of civic duty, not the maximum.

tombert8• 1 year ago

Sure. What are you doing outside of voting?

sheepscreek2• 1 year ago

Regarding civic duty, I would start by “being civil with your fellow citizens”. The irony is not lost on me.

Edit: To be clear, my comment is not aimed at you. I mean we’re missing the A in the ABCs of civic duty. It’s each person for themselves.

timewizard6• 1 year ago

Voting is not a civic duty. I have every right NOT to vote. It's my voice and I can use it as I please. Forcing me into a ballot box to pick between two awful choices is not civilized.

kmeisthax• 1 year ago

You might have an interest in this: https://globalcomment.com/how-to-defeat-an-autocrat-flocking...

outside12343• 1 year ago

Yes - we ALL have to flock together around the basic concepts that unite us. I think this is what we are seeing with the Tesla protests and we need to push harder to get to the 3.5% of the population that forces the system to adjust.

dgacmu3• 1 year ago

You said you didn't know what to do, so some ideas to start the ideas flowing for you:

- support media, particularly local.

- there are protests to attend if that's your thing. Tesla takedown is one set that's getting a lot of traction. (Note: these are peaceful protests; don't hurt people's cars). There's a broad "hands off" protest April 5, as another example.

- build and stay in touch with community.

- encourage others to do the same. Can you get folks to move off Twitter? Get some web site you're associated with to replace their twitter share icon with a masto/bsky one? Get folks to make a plan to vote in the next election? To themselves support local media or organizations? Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?

tombert8• 1 year ago

support media, particularly local.

Agreed. No argument on that.

there are protests to attend if that's your thing.

I'm afraid they're not. I'm happy to donate money to causes for people to protest but just being honest, I'm probably not going to do it.

Tesla takedown is getting a lot of traction

I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand.

Can you get folks to move off Twitter?

None of my family or friends were really using Twitter even before Elon bought it.

To make a plan to vote in the next election?

All my family and friends vote in every election anyway.

To themselves support local media or organizations?

Again, agreed on that. I'll mention that to parents next time I talk to them.

Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?

I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician. I am also afraid it would turn me evil.

I don't really disagree with anything you said, just that I'm already doing most of what you suggested.

bongodongobob4• 1 year ago

How have those methods worked against authoritarian governments historically? I think we need to start being more realistic.

areyouliving2• 1 year ago

As far as I can tell my local media and government are more corrupt than national / federal. All local newspapers, radio stations, and TV "news" are owned by a handful of entities.

Citizens who practice free speech are being disappeared to El Salvador.

If you organize resistance, you will be targeted by billionaires and their massive media networks.

petesergeant2• 1 year ago

You do you. Continue to vote, and if you can find a local cause that you can give time and attention to, do that. If you can find some small way you can help people who are affected, do that. Subscribe to news sources you trust and think are shining a light on the right things. Maybe setup small donations to candidates you think are pushing the country in the right direction. Not everyone needs to fight every fight.

tombert8• 1 year ago

I do donate to candidates that I think are less evil than the average politician.

A bit more locally; my wife is Mexican and as such I have a lot of Mexican in-laws. I have been helping my brother-in-law deal with immigration lawyers (and paid for them) in hopes that he might be able to get his citizenship soon-ish.

If I felt like anything I did in the grand political scope would do anything, I'd do it. I used to be a lot more active in this stuff, but it's pretty easy to get disillusioned and cynical with this stuff.

carterschonwald2• 1 year ago

Run for office and aggressively fight back.

bilegeek• 1 year ago

Not just an inferred point, it's been explicitly stated before. In the longer form interviews (can't find everything in full at the moment), the context is the news media in particular, but it applies to the general public as well.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiaU8P9y-wU

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0 (short clip)

[3]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iTSgL_R1CC4 (another short clip)

throw0101d• 1 year ago

I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us.

From 2017:

* https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/7/14844120/how-to-fight...

The firehouse is also a deliberate strategy:

The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

* https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

If you need to take a break, certain do so ("touch grass"), but be mindful that everyone's support is needed, and this will be a marathon.

See also recent post on Snyder's book On Tyranny:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43503004

AnimalMuppet3• 1 year ago

Think in Bayesian terms. If you update your priors at all when the lie comes, then the firehose will overwhelm you, because the lie (or a similar, related lie) comes so often. If you update at all, then you wind up believing it.

But the only defense is to not update your priors. That means that you don't update on things that are actually true, either.

This is basically the death of epistemology. How do you know, and how do you know you know? It's no longer possible in this environment.

Postmodernism talked about a post-truth world. Putin has made it a reality.

outer_web6• 1 year ago

There are a few things that are on their way to SCOTUS. Be prepared to react to the elimination of independent agencies or the legalization of impoundment.

Yes, the noise is to make you exhausted/miss the important things. Probably safe to ignore talk about invading Greenland.

amitport3• 1 year ago

People voted for Trump because the democratic party is THAT bad. Instead of keeping attacking Trump maybe it is time to ponder what is it about the current democratic party that made so many people disapprove of them.

someothherguyy5• 1 year ago

Plenty of other reasons they could have voted the way they did?

https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...

Throwaway5369• 1 year ago

Protest. Go onto the streets. Doing nothing means accepting the way things are

zamalek5• 1 year ago

If Trump wins the next election, take that as the signal of the point of no return. It happened to Rome, it can happen to America.

blatantly2• 1 year ago

Trump the person or Trump the family or even Trump the idea.

jfengel• 1 year ago

We are already long past the point of no return. He is the manifestation of a popular will. Even if he vanished tomorrow, those voters will remain.

They will not be daunted by an electoral setback. They control the Supreme Court, and will for decades. They control a majority of state legislatures -- which control how voting and districting work.

We've been past the point of no return since 2016. If you still had hope then, it should have died the same day Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. At this point it's all just telling ourselves fairy stories. It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.

analog31• 1 year ago

They were barely more than half of the voters, and did not represent a single unified ideology. This doesn't mean they won't vote against their own interests again.

quotemstr2• 1 year ago

It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.

For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...)

This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government

solomonb• 1 year ago

He can't run again.

zamalek5• 1 year ago

You say that now. Every system designed to protect the constitution has been captured by him.

America has 4 years to set things right, it had better make it count.

forgetfreeman• 1 year ago

Keep watching. He's got close to 4 years to figure out how to cross that Rubicon.

Supermancho2• 1 year ago

I think this is a foolish belief.

The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945

There's already precedent.

mattnewton6• 1 year ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-t... I agree but he doesn’t and neither do his voters.

umanwizard3• 1 year ago

Why not? Because a piece of paper says he’s not allowed to? Pieces of paper say a lot of things; sometimes they’re followed, sometimes not.

lynndotpy• 1 year ago

Trump that he's serious about running for a third term and that there are methods to do it.

That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...

We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."

nsxwolf2• 1 year ago

He can be VP and then succeed by the president stepping down.

twright2• 1 year ago

On paper he can't do a lot of things but the amount of gutting and cutting that's happened in the last two(!) months makes one realize the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on without a proactive congress interested in keeping the executive in check. Suspending birthright citizenship as established in the 14th amendment is a big one that "he can't do." Challenges to E.O. 14160 are going through the courts right now so we'll see.

Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?

asveikau3• 1 year ago

Putin was also term limited around 2012 iirc?

This is what these people do.

nl• 1 year ago

He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump.

Trump, 78, said in the interview that he was serious about seeking a third term in office.
"A lot of people want me to do it," Trump said, according to NBC News. "But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I'm focused on the current."
When asked about specific plans for seeking a third term, Trump confirmed one method — Vice President JD Vance wins the White House in a future election and then hands over the presidency. Trump said there were other plans, but he refused to say what they wer

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term

mullingitover4• 1 year ago

Don't know why you're getting downvoted, he is openly stating he plans to try to violate the 22nd amendment of the Constitution[1].

If you think that can't happen, think about this: the Constitution already prohibited him from running as an insurrectionist. Multiple states found that he committed insurrection and the US Supreme Court forced him on their ballots anyway. The reason: they assert that the amendment isn't self-enforcing, and congress must proactively write a law in order to create enforcement measures for the 14th amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists. They didn't, so he was allowed to run and take office.

That same logical jiu-jitsu the GOP used to successfully violate the 14th amendment could just as easily be used on the 22nd.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-third-term-president-con...

zamalek5• 1 year ago

Don't discuss comment voting :) [1]. I'm an adult and can handle it, corrective votes will be issued by others if its warranted.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

userbinator• 1 year ago

He's already 78.

Edit: Born June 14, 1946 - you do the math.

1970-01-012• 1 year ago

It can also fail outright if voters and Congress pick up the scent of Emperor at midterms. History does not always repeat. If it did, we would not have had democracy to begin with.

zamalek5• 1 year ago

I think in this case it will require the non-voters picking up the scent of a monarch. This is why I believe that point is yet to come (though I do believe that the belief that we are passed it is also very rational, only history will know).

ojbyrne• 1 year ago

We’re a long way from that:

1. He’ll have to change some rules to run again. There will be a lot of resistance.

2. Midterm elections (November of 2026) could take away majorities in the house and the senate, and hopefully bring impeachment back into the picture.

3. There are special elections next Tuesday - 2 house seats in Florida and a Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin. It’s encouraging that Republicans are worried about these, the apartheid billionaire is spraying money all over Wisconsin.

Yes it’s dark and depressing, but things can be changed long before the next Presidential election.

Ygg2• 1 year ago

If Trump wins the next election[..] It happened to Rome

In Rome, Cezar didn't become the dictator for life, he got stabbed to death. What happened is that his successor, Octavian, took control of real power while pretending that the republic was fine.

In reality Republic died before Cezar, while Octavian played Weekend at Bernie's.

blatantly2• 1 year ago

This is a brilliant article because it is summarising how bad it is. They don't want you to know how bad! Lots of paper cuts and hopefully no one sees the amputation.

We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.

mptest2• 1 year ago

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/donald-trump-new...

Everyone should at least watch this video. Taken in America. "Land of the free."

That this is only one of many such videos is terrifying if you know the history of fascist regimes.

I hope everyone here is familiar with the "first they came for the communists..." poem.

smallmancontrov3• 1 year ago

It has started. The Posobiec book (foreword by Steve Bannon) makes the case that anyone to the left of Mussolini is a "secret communist revolutionary" and rationalizes doing anything to "crush" us.

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/unhumans

This is a popular book. I found my own mother reading it. I took the title at face value at first and found the skull disturbing but not threatening what with not being a communist or anything close to it. But then I started reading and I realized that it's not a matter of if they pull the trigger but when, and when they pull the trigger that they would be completely comfortable calling my mild liberal beliefs communist, and that my mother would probably believe them as they stripped me of citizenship and sent me to a labor camp in El Salvador.

DamnInteresting• 1 year ago

Direct link to video for those who hit the Slate paywall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuFIs7OkzYY

carterschonwald2• 1 year ago

As best I can tell, the simplest way to fight back via legal channels sans unlimited legal budget is to run for office. Like I’m seriously trying to figure out if that’s a sane option for me despite my total disregard and distrust of authority. Also my distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies, traditions or bullshit.

crooked-v• 1 year ago

See the group Run For Something, who are actively helping people do this. https://runforsomething.net/run/

try_the_bass3• 1 year ago

I mean, if your problems stem from the political machine, then getting involved in the machine does sound like the best option.

Put differently: if you feel like no part of the political machine accurately represents you, the most straightforward way to remedy that is by representing yourself.

ripped_britches• 1 year ago

distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies

Good luck with that

Just messing, I really hope genuinely good people run for office instead of LBJ type bullies

mrguyorama2• 1 year ago

LBJ's "bullying" is the only reason we have the Civil Rights act.

At the time, a large bloc of senators said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."

The bill was fillibustered for 60 days.

The former confederate states pretty much all voted against it. The south VIOLENTLY resisted desegregation.

jmyeet2• 1 year ago

I've come to realize there's absolutely no reforming the Democratic Party. They are willing accomplices in this. Consider these examples:

- In 2001, an open socialist, India Walton, won the Democratic primary for mayor. The State Democratic Party united with Republicans to fund a write-in campaign to re-elect Byron Brown as mayor, which was successful [1];

- Adam Schiff and the California Democratic Party spent millions to prop up a Republican to get the second-most votes in the California Senate primary. Why? California has what's called a "jungle primary" where the two candidates with the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, are on the ballot in the general election. The Republican has no chance so Schiff and the California Democrats are just making sure no progressive ends up on the ticket;

- The shenanigans in 2016 to make Hilary Clinton, a terrible candidate, the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders, including withholding funding, the threat of superdelegates and generally just putting the thumb on the scale at every turn;

- Again in 2020 with Bernie Sanders. Jim Clyburn and the DNC arranged for Biden to take South Carolina. Elizabeth Warren stayed in just long enough to peel off Bernie's votes. Other candidates got out of the way (eg Pete Buttigieg) and were rewarded for it with Cabinet positions;

- When Biden finally withdraw his re-election bid one option on the table was to have a convention primary. Instead Biden and the DNC simply anointed Kamala Harris because they were scared a progressive might win;

- Henry Cuellar, Congressman from Texas, is the (I believe) only anti-choice Democratic in the House. He has twice now faced a stiff primary challenge from progressive Jessica Cisneros who ran a grassroots campaign, the last time only winning by a few hundred votes. Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn went down to campaign for him in Texas.

If the Democratic Party opposed Trump half as well as they do progressive elements in their own party, we'd be living in a very different country.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/elections-buffalo-campaigns-elect...

NullPrefix• 1 year ago

Trump is elected and everybody suddenly start caring about civil rights

mattnewton6• 1 year ago

Actually government officials started ignoring the FOIA, firing federal oversight employees, deporting students, and cutting federal funding for colleges that have protests the administration doesn’t like.

nine_zeros4• 1 year ago

I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.

I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights.

I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks?

The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse.

Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?

mattnewton6• 1 year ago

American voters no longer agree on what made America special.

nine_zeros4• 1 year ago

Yes, misinformation won. But when Trump actively cuts benefits, cuts jobs, cuts research, asks for bribes openly, quid pro quo everywhere, town halls unanswered - do voters in America feel willing to change their votes?

Are voters willing to strike until the President resigns? Or are people ok with the country being sold to third world style corruption that is happening right in front of their faces?

shadowgovt8• 1 year ago

Americans allowed Congress to cede a lot of its power to the President after 9/11. That has been a slow-roll towards "rule by EO" since then. In addition, the processes Congress creates are somewhat sclerotic for several reasons; there's a relatively good book out recently by Ezra Klein titled "Abundance" on the details.

Federal judges generally don't prior-constrain the Executive. Hypothetically, the flow of control should be Congress restraining the Executive if it fails to do Congress's will; The judiciary steps in if the Executive tries to do something unconstitutional, but that's restraint of the action; punishment for continued bad behavior should flow from Congress.

Americans are still, overall, quite personally comfortable. I don't anticipate actions at capitals until that comfort is en-masse threatened.

nine_zeros4• 1 year ago

Americans are still, overall, quite personally comfortable. I don't anticipate actions at capitals until that comfort is en-masse threatened.

I suspect you are right. It will probably take a full recession, much like COVID, for people to slam brakes at the travesty.

winter_blue3• 1 year ago

It might be better to say “Republicans” instead of “Americans” as you do. Americans are a deeply divided group of people: one-third republicans, one-third democrats, and one-third apathetic.

The one-third of Americans who are republicans put Trump in power, and are indirectly responsible for what’s happening — and the vast majority of them of course wholeheartedly fully support these violations of the First Amendment.

The democrats of course oppose all of these things.

Please stop using “Americans” as if this were one solid group of people who share the same views.

discordance• 1 year ago

Divided they might be, but unfortunately Americans share one president who is acting on their behalf.

tstrimple5• 1 year ago

Doesn't matter that Democrats oppose it. The fact that there are enough Americans who do support it puts us well beyond trust for any international audience. Democrats could be the best allies and most cooperative people in the world. But Republicans will just tear up any treaties or agreements the next time they get power. It's now impossible to trust the US. The world has seen who we really are and the Democrats have been completely useless at mitigating any of it. The last image the world got from our Democrats is them campaigning with the Cheney's.

BrenBarn2• 1 year ago

Executive order vs. legislation is a meaningless distinction to most people. What most people care about is what they or someone else can get in trouble for and what consequences they will face, and more generally just how good they perceive their life to be. It's like trying to distinguish between two diseases with long latinate names; what matters is how sick you feel and what treatment will stop it.

Insofar as people do care, I think many people actually prefer executive order-style action because they perceive it as swifter, more direct, and less tied up in debate, dithering, and red tape.

But mostly what people care about is just "are things happening the way I want them to happen". If yes, they won't care about the mechanism that produced that; if no, they will blame whoever they perceive to be responsible, whether or not they actually are.

jerlam2• 1 year ago

Side discussion, but the United States having two separate, elected legislative and executive branches is kind of lousy. It makes it difficult, as you say, to understand who is responsible for anything. Yet we have somehow convinced ourselves that it is the best system, because we have also convinced ourselves we are the best country.

Most countries with parliamentary systems don't have this problem, where a person votes for a party and that party works with other parties to elect the the head executive. That head executive answers to the legislative. There aren't situations where the legislative and executive branches aren't politically aligned (a divided government) which has become common in the US and basically where nothing can get done.

If you look at other countries that also have Presidential systems, the US is not in very good company:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of...

fundad5• 1 year ago

Yes I think many Americans don’t our government is what makes us special and would rather put their religious interests ahead of congressional law.

bongodongobob4• 1 year ago

I think one of the problems we face here is effective protesting. Imagine you live in Spain and have to travel to Africa to protest. The US is big and it's hard for us to get into one spot. We can protest at our state capitols, sure, but that's not as effective as traveling to DC which is basically out of the question for the majority of the country.

Sargos• 1 year ago

I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.

Can you cite a poll for this? Most Americans have never been asked and likely aren't okay with it but we don't really have a choice in the matter.

When it comes down to it the decision on how executive orders work is based on what a few dozen people think and most of them aren't elected. The general public has no say in the matter.

remarkEon4• 1 year ago

Responding in good faith, here. As far as I can tell, what people who voted for Trump have a problem with - and are thus quite happy with as far as action from this Administration is concerned - is that while there are ostensibly only three branches of the Federal Government (the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial), there is in fact a fourth. This fourth branch is the administrative state, and it is (in their telling, not stating this as fact necessarily) an unelected branch that has overwhelmingly leaned left since Richard Nixon, and has an enormous amount of control over the direction of government. One example is USAID, which is a broad way for federal dollars to be spent on various pet projects, prioritized by career bureaucrats with expansive (and expensive) resumes. Trump exerting control over how these dollars are spent is something they like, because they think it's weird (and I see their point) that the executive branch spends a ton of money that the elected officers in that branch may not want spent in that manner. (Yes, I am aware, some or most of this money is congressionally authorized in some manner, debatable, and honestly it's good to have that debate). Anyway, some people like seeing a chief executive asserting control over the executive branch. It's not really more complicated than that, and pearl clutching about "fascism" is pretty boring, because that is a word with specific meaning. Unless you want to expand that meaning, I suppose.

fundad5• 1 year ago

I agree on the interpretation on the resentment of MAGA, but I do think the administration is fascist and the president should be removed and sentenced for treason. To MAGA, saving lives abroad by spending a small portion of our budget looks like a scam, like lipstick on imperialism. It's complimentary to describe military as a force for freedom rather than overpaid security guards for oligarchy, but MAGA are in on that joke. MAGA doesn't see any war as "stupid", nor do they sincerely mind private email servers or inflation and obviously don't actually value economic growth. Attributing rationality will leave you confused, the only consistent value among MAGA is accelerationism.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/11/20882005/accele...

unethical_ban7• 1 year ago

Agencies are created and funded by the legislature. The executive operates them, and has some discretion over their operations and priorities.

Rank and file workers have protections from firing by the executive because if they didn't, we would have the corrupt patronage systems we had 100 years ago.

Independent watchdogs at each agency are protected because political insulation is a requirement for such a role.

Put simply:

Authoritarianism is strongman politics where courts are ignored, and one/few people exert almost total control over the operation of government, ignoring any legal constraints on their power, and any criticism of the ruling party is inherently fake and illegitimate.

Fascism is the right wing brand of authoritarianism.

Reasonable people can debate spending levels or efficiency. But this administration is not interested in that. They are permanently destroying America's place in the world and at least temporarily, and illegally, destroying parts of the federal government. All while participating in eye watering levels of corruption and judicial self-service (firing prosecutors investigating friends, firing generals without cause, calling for impeachment of every judge they don't like).

Our government's design is broken. Our voting system only permits two parties. Our house districts are geographically manipulated. The electoral college further obfuscates the election or president.

charlie902• 1 year ago

Most Americans cant name the branches of government, they dont even know what an executive order is.

declan_roberts2• 1 year ago

Trump had allegedly fired people responsible for FOIA but at the same time we are finally seeing documents that the DOJ and FBI have been slow walking for almost 8 years or longer.

Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.

shadowgovt8• 1 year ago

Both of these things can be true: the administration can fire people responsible for FOIA while fast-tracking requests they consider high priority with the remaining staff.

stephen_g• 1 year ago

That they released a set of pretty inconsequential documents and might release some info on political opponents doesn't make up for gutting FOIA!

zip1234• 1 year ago

On top of that, violating public records laws by using signal chat for official communications with disappearing messages turned on.

shermantanktop• 1 year ago

Turns out you don’t need FOIA when the participants free the information by accident.

declan_roberts2• 1 year ago

Are there settings you can apply to Signal that make them compatible with record retention laws?

asveikau3• 1 year ago

A bunch of papers related to the JFK assassination that say Lee Harvey Oswald did it and acted alone. Who cares?

This certainly isn't something that means you should ignore the fact that people are being abducted by plainclothes agents who refuse to identify themselves, and sent to Salvadorean prison camps without any chance for appeal.

CapricornNoble• 1 year ago

A bunch of papers related to the JFK assassination that say Lee Harvey Oswald did it and acted alone. Who cares?

That's not what people are concluding in the information spaces I'm in at all. Many of the CIA documents show highly suspicious travel, activities, and statements, particularly for James Angleton, William King Harvey, and a few others who's names escape me. They lend credence to the theory that Allen Dulles possibly conspired to kill JFK, putting into action henchmen of his still at the CIA after he was fired. You should care if the unelected bureaucrats that run our global intelligence agency can act with such impunity that they can murder a sitting President and cover it up for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1bbdOgIzrI

We had a Senator say on mainstream news "the intelligence community has 6 ways to get back at you" (in reference to Trump having an antagonistic relationship with the intel community) and nobody batted an eye. Why the fuck would it ever be ok for the CIA to have ways to "get back at" the Commander-in-Chief? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYyXv2l4-I

ajross• 1 year ago

Impeding the release of government info requested by the general public and selectively releasing only items of political value to you or your coalition sounds like exactly the kind of corruption FOIA was supposed to address.

sega_sai• 1 year ago

As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)

uoaei• 1 year ago

The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people.

Media is the practice of including and excluding voices, and there are distinct trends over time of representing one or another set of voices.

mmooss12• 1 year ago

The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people.

The same people supporting Trump, from national thought leaders like Heritage and the Federalist society, to Murdoch publications (Fos, WSJ), to everyday people on social media have long pushed hard for expanded Second Amendment rights, expended freedom of religion which outweighs all other considerations and rights, and freedom of speech, etc. for right-wing hate speech (including their focus on social media moderation) - just as examples.

kristopolous• 1 year ago

They're the same ultra-nationalists. I just did a quick twitter search for "founding fathers". Here we have, in order:

People tab:

"I love our founding fathers": https://x.com/Stephan73992604

"Founding Fathers daily": https://x.com/FFoundersDaily

Someone with [heart] founding fathers: https://x.com/JKernerOT

Top tweets:

Rush Limbaugh: https://x.com/LimbaughLegacy/status/1906424705336180913

"ThePatrioticBlonde": https://x.com/ImBreckWorsham/status/1904301594717651038

And an actual anti-semite: https://x.com/GnoticeUs/status/1906465034823499806

And the most recent:

https://x.com/SwampFox1795/status/1906554560094576889 https://x.com/tablewithannie/status/1906554512472736060 https://x.com/jp_peter51132/status/1906555671040102769

The ultra-nationalists love national myth and imagery. Always have. See the picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...

Displays of nationalism and patriotism is mostly just a disciplining tactic by authoritarians who want unquestioning loyalty simply by displaying superficial symbols and gestures.

It's a way to claim the authority of the dead, to manufacture legitimacy through association. So now you're questioning the flag as opposed to the person waving it telling you what to do.

giantg23• 1 year ago

The fawning is always about whatever topic the speaker cares about. It just an emotional tactic. Not everyone cares about the founding father's views in the same way. Not to mention, there was a variety of opinions even amongst themselves.

hn_throwaway_992• 1 year ago

As an American, I agree - I'm pretty surprised at how nakedly transparent the whole thing has been. One basic example - I thought pretty much everyone agreed that at least some level of due process is just inherent to the rights of everyone in the US. When I hear administration figures arguing that flying the Venezuelans to El Salvadoran prisons is a good thing because "they're really bad dudes", I think "OK, and we're just supposed to trust that you and you alone can make that determination?" It has already been reported that multiple people had no ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, but were solely imprisoned due to their tattoos. When I took civics in high school this is exactly the type of stuff that we learned that basically "the US does not do", and there was an inherent pride in that fact. So like you I'm surprised at how quickly and transparently it all got washed away.

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

They started this tactic of "They're bad dudes trust us don't need a trial" during the Bush administration and many many people pointed out this would come to our shores soon, and it did and it's here again.

zmgsabst4• 1 year ago

Of course.

This is what happens when “rule of law” is subverted on the generational scale — eg, by enabling illicit mass migration opposed by the majority of the people. They eventually feel that appeals to “rule of law” are merely emotional manipulation used against them and stop caring in pursuit of a solution to what they perceive as a problem.

What did people expect to happen?

wahnfrieden• 1 year ago

Venezuela claims zero were members fwiw

Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said on Friday that none of the hundreds of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to a Salvadoran prison is a member of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua criminal gang, the reason Washington gave for expelling them.
"I believe with absolute responsibility that not a single one appears on the organizational chart of the now-extinct Tren de Aragua organization, not a single one," Cabello said on a podcast, saying he had names of the deportees from U.S. media and his own source.
Venezuela says Tren de Aragua was effectively wiped out in 2023, and that the idea that it still exists is based on a claim from the country's political opposition.

wrs2• 1 year ago

What we’re experiencing is a group exploiting the biggest vulnerability in the American system, one that was known to the founding fathers. If you can get enough people to vote for you and your friends, then all of the checks and balances will eventually fail against you, because in the end they’re all dependent on the populace not voting for people who corrupt the system.

It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them that someone could be impeached twice and convicted of fraud, then win the popular vote.

soraminazuki6• 1 year ago

It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them

Or more like there is no solution to this besides telling people to be vigilant about protecting their democracies.

coolhand2120• 1 year ago

Is your argument that when a political party hold all major branches of government that it is implicitly corrupt? Or are you arguing that one side is corrupt and the other is not?

Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters? That appears to be a potential valid outcome.

tremon• 1 year ago

Not entirely true, they did consider that possibility, and their solution was the electoral college: the only reason for its existence is as a safeguard against installing a populist president that would corrupt the system.

dj_gitmo• 1 year ago

During the first Trump term, most of the institutions did resist Trump. The fact that he go reelected after his first term was so chaotic and scandalous has basically demoralized everyone. There are other factors, like the utter failure of Biden and the democrats, but its hard to recon with the fact that people are so far gone at this point.

bentobean• 1 year ago

I don’t feel demoralized.

tokioyoyo• 1 year ago

My understanding is, anyone who resists will get crucified and lose money. Nobody wants to lose customers or money. It's funny when you talk to people with money, who completely disagree with the administration, will go and say the opposite publicly because they don't want to deal with the mob.

abustamam3• 1 year ago

As an American born to immigrants, I love the vision of the founding fathers, but I don't understand why they are so revered by some. They were slave owners who, at the time, had some pretty radical ideas for how to run a country. Some ideas were great and stood the test of time, and some were terrible and required amendments. We can't solve today's problems by thinking like dudes from the 1700s.

johnnyanmac13• 1 year ago

At the same time, some ideas were great but scales of economy and population ruined them. e.g. The house of represenatives should probably number over 1000 today to properly work as structured in the founding papers. But we somewhat arbitrarily capped it at 435 100 years ago. now while that's way too many people per rep, most political scientists don't really suggest that we should have 1200 reps in the House. proposals end up more around 700.

some reverence may simply be patriotism. I suppose it's no different than any other kinds of celebrity style of worship. people like a role model.

FlyingSnake• 1 year ago

My thoughts exactly.

I’ve lived in the USA and saw the Iowa caucus and election process up close. For a country that was the self proclaimed arbitrator of democracy all over the world, I’m shocked how fragile their own checks-and-balances system is. The lack of opposition to this complete takeover is astounding. I hope USA survives this phase and comes out stronger and more resilient to further such events.

starchild30014• 1 year ago

I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment. And the same principles made it a world leader. Now that enlightenment values are actively being dismantled what next can we expect?

mmooss12• 1 year ago

I think it starts with undermining the values: Note the disparagement of freedom, of knowledge, science, and education as ways humans can make their world better - even the idea of making the world better and of truth itself; of the rule of law rather than the rule of power, and the embrace of violence, athletics, etc. Notice the contempt for the enlightenment and embrace of ancient Rome and other sub-democratic or dictatorial government.

I don't think it's accidental; I think people have a plan to bring down institutions, and it's working so far.

zmgsabst4• 1 year ago

It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US.

That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.

galaxyLogic7• 1 year ago

I don't think it's accidental either but the way to understand why it's happening is to ask who benefits from it. In most cases it would seem to be, Putin. He benefits from diminishing US, from stopping US support for democracy all over the world.

If the whole world is governed by say 3 dictators they can easily make peace with each other and share the spoils. But they won't because wars will increase their domestic support. Orwell wrote about this.

luhsprwhk4• 1 year ago

It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed. Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.

starchild30014• 1 year ago

I'd think peace after WWII lasted for 77 years (between 1945-2022 until the ukraine war broke out which appears to be the beginning of a new hot war).

mmooss12• 1 year ago

Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.

Do you mean that "the" post-WWII peace settlement didn't last? It seems to have worked very well.

It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed.

That certainly played a big role. Also, American principles that created a post-war order based on univeral human rights, the rule of law, and free-market capitalism (including free trade). Those principles led to treatment of the losing powers in that image, rather than in retribution, cruelty or oppression (compare to the USSR in Eastern Europe). In fact, Japan surrendered when they did mainly in order to surrender to the US and not to the USSR - those principles had very significant effects. They also led to the Marshall Plan in Europe.

The principles and the resulting actions created 'soft power' which may be unmatched in history. The general alliance with European powers has lasted over 80 years; the NATO military alliance, of mutual self-defense, has lasted almost as long - has there been anything like it?

People around the world fought and struggled for the vision of American freedom. I've spoken to people from different countries who, even in the first Trump administration, still had the American dream; they still saw the 'city on the hill'.

Beyond a doubt, the US also has done plenty of awful things. But what has distingiushed it, beyond every great power in history, are those principles.

Barrin92• 1 year ago

I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment.

I'm gonna be honest, the actual founding fathers as individuals aside, most of the people coming over where arguably running away from the Enlightenment rather than towards it, and a superstitious and fantastical isolationism was the norm, not the exception for most of America's history, while the post WWII leadership role was more of an accident. In some ways, this is old habits reasserting themselves

wwweston2• 1 year ago

Reading _First Principles_ by Thomas Ricks a few years ago was an eye opener -- the founding fathers and national civic culture definitely drew deeply from enlightenment thinking and further back classical civics and philosophy.

Towards the end of his book, Ricks notes the populist / religious backlash to enlightenment thinking that was already underway by the early 19th century.

It's strange to realize the post WWII America most of us have lived may really be exceptional, and how many either don't understand how big a part the liberal order has played in making America great since FDR, or have a different vision of greatness that requires tearing much of what we've enjoyed down.

tayo423• 1 year ago

I was under the impression the US became a world leader mostly because of being in the right place after WW2. It wasn't really a leading country before that?

starchild30014• 1 year ago

Read some Adam Smith (1776 -- Wealth of Nations). How highly he talks about America back then. It was always leading economically.

gscott• 1 year ago

Dark age?

aredox6• 1 year ago

Enlightenment - and slavery. And the ethnic cleansing of the natives.

Americans from the very beginning started playing on words - "all men are equal, but women aren't men, natives aren't citizens, and negros aren't even humans"

mmooss12• 1 year ago

Absolutely, but they reject those things now, by following the Enlightenment principles - except for the people attacking the Enlightenment institutions, who are embracing these old prejudices and hatred and oppression.

starchild30014• 1 year ago

1) Dark enlightenment: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/dark-enlightenment-elon...

(Does this ring a bell -- as in Dark MAGA?)

2) The Interview Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...

3) The philosophy behind Trump’s Dark Enlightenment An English magus of anti-democratic neoreaction has become a touchstone for the alt-right https://archive.is/SWAFE

slowhadoken7• 1 year ago

I can’t remember anyone respecting mainstream US news for the last 30+ years. Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question.

JumpCrisscross5• 1 year ago

Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question

It’s a stupid question easily dismissed with a modicum of research. (Most papers aren’t public.)

slowhadoken7• 1 year ago

Example (using “a modicum of research): MSNBC -> NBCUniversal News Group -> Comcast Corp (and Vivendi) -> The Vanguard Group (largest shareholder).

paulgb• 1 year ago

Those companies run ETFs. They “own” lots of companies because they sell broad market funds to basically every passive investor in America.

slowhadoken7• 1 year ago

That sounds like a yes. Larry Fink famously announced that “you have to force behaviors” when describing how ESG is tied into investments proving he has weight to throw around.

verteu3• 1 year ago

Asset managers do not control the news. Jack Bogle died with a net worth of $80mm. He was not even powerful enough to afford a top-tier penthouse in Manhattan, let alone control the media.

slowhadoken7• 1 year ago

BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group each respectably manage trillions of dollars in asset, private equity, and debt. They're independent firms but each own substantial shares in one another. Together these 3 firms are major shareholders in FAANG (big US tech) and mainstream US news agencies. BlackRock alone has disclosed through their latest SEC filings that it holds stakes in 5,387 companies globally. https://fintel.io/i/blackrock https://ecell.iitm.ac.in/blog/post/above-the-fold-a-company-...

ralusek• 1 year ago

Are Democrats constantly in violation of the constitution, and openly hostile to the first amendment? Yes.

Does that make any of this acceptable? No. And a good deal of this is even more concerning.

vlovich1232• 1 year ago

Can you elaborate? This article is talking about the threats posed by the Trump administration not by the Democrats who have no real power in the federal government at the moment.

SoyAnto• 1 year ago

What are these violations of the constitution committed by democrats you speak of?

DangitBobby11• 1 year ago

Probably 2nd Amendment. Democrats do push a pretty tortured interpretation of 2A, it's true.

zombiwoof• 1 year ago

Whatever Trump says: he does the opposite .

As long as Fox News reports what he says as fact no one does anything

twright2• 1 year ago

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.

In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.

p1necone• 1 year ago

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.

Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

cyanydeez• 1 year ago

Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.

echelon• 1 year ago

The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech.

You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.

The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.

Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.

[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 year ago

I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.

slibhb• 1 year ago

Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.

The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.

And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!

soulofmischief• 1 year ago

I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.

jmyeet2• 1 year ago

The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one.

Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes.

The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans.

What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.

lovich2• 1 year ago

Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that

generalizations• 1 year ago

Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.

raxxorraxor20• 1 year ago

I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context.

Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.

RachelF• 1 year ago

One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada.

Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK.

Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.

russelg• 1 year ago

I wonder what any of those have to do with a USA constitutional matter?

PieTime3• 1 year ago

I agree, but I think these countries don’t actually have free speech. I don’t care if I disagree with these positions. I will protest to defend their right to say it, otherwise I will lose mine as well.

getnormality2• 1 year ago

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past.

If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.

someothherguyy5• 1 year ago

RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

apical_dendrite• 1 year ago

When the government's reason for defunding a media organization is based on that organization's viewpoint, then it is absolutely an attack on freedom of the press. I'm not sure about Radio Free Asia, but Trump has specifically cited his objections to the viewpoints of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the reason for destroying them.

brightball• 1 year ago

I just wish there was always this much interest in free speech. The level of care in most circles tends to sway based on who is in office.

donatj2• 1 year ago

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

Read that, please.

I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.

The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...

The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.

I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.

The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.

ooterness2• 1 year ago

Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.

How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?

protocolture6• 1 year ago

Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist.

Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.

Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.

acidmath8• 1 year ago

A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.

raxxorraxor20• 1 year ago

The problem isn't that the current US administration is seen as a good protector of freedom of speech. It is that its opposition dropped the ball on it so massively.

With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate".

This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.

dragonwriter2• 1 year ago

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.

The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.

Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.

In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.

The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (

raxxorraxor20• 1 year ago

Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite.

Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...

calf• 1 year ago

Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.

GrumpyCat424• 1 year ago

What Brian and a lot of the commenters here need to realize is that online outrage does not help progressive causes in the slightest.

While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:

Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.

This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.

I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.

girvo3• 1 year ago

I didn't see any "online outrage" from Brian here, just a sadly sober listing of all the direct attacks on the first amendment, with sources and explanation.

Heck, it's not even political despite the screeching to the contrary.

You're right that action must be taken too, but action does require an understanding of the battlefield one is entering.

GrumpyCat424• 1 year ago

YMMV, but I would argue that claiming Trump is waging an unprecedented attack against the first amendment, accompanied by a picture of the first amendment ripped in half, is calling for (rightful) outrage and is inherently political. The post is very informational and well-cited, but it's not the changing hearts and minds of those it needs to.

Action has to be taken, but by people with the power to change things -- namely democratic leadership, who have the funds & influence (albeit dwindling). Do they understand the battlefield they're entering? I don't think so, as I think they're sticking to that same outrage strategy.

wredcoll3• 1 year ago

Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.

People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.

People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.

Can the democratic party play that game? Sure. Should they? Maybe? I mean, it would be nice to have someone with an iq over 80 and at least a shred of morality and self-respect somewhere in our elected officials.

Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.

GrumpyCat424• 1 year ago

People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans".

Surely a mother-knows-best attitude will work.

Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.

Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.

People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.

Surely strawmanning any solid, modern, coherent plan as stripping away rights will work.

Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.

Did you want me to go say some full-time working-class person working paycheck to paycheck can just go run for office and singlehandedly defeat Trump in a landslide victory?

Karrot_Kream• 1 year ago

I've found, since about the end of the Obama admin, a huge gap between the outraged base and the realities of politics on the ground that's made me quite despondent. The base just wants to talk about how outraged they are to each other on every piece of media they can. It's like social signaling; you have to tell every other upper middle class news addicted millennial or GenX how much you hate the current administration constantly.

But there's no effort to convince swing voters to vote against Trump. The midterms will be here before anyone knows it and it's going to be the first big chance to push back on the current administration, but I see so little work that's being done to create a coherent opposition party. Ezra Klein's book on Abundance was a great starting point. In Dem spaces though, reaction to the book was pretty much absent. Most of Dem base temporarily got busy trying to come up with ways that Klein has failed some progressive purity test (centrists are fascists, environmental injustice, etc etc.) Then after that, most just ignored his vision and went back to crying about the current administration.

IMO the Dems cranky, upper middle class news addicted base is its worst feature. They continue to kneecap the Dems from being a real opposition party. Telling people how bad the administration is won't make a good opposition party. It worked just enough for 2020 but ran out of steam by 2024. Dems need to create a vision of the future under Dem rule.

I suspect it's because the coalition that kept the Democratic party together has failed and its current base is just too small to win votes in elections. They've lost their bonafides among the trade unions, they've lost their appeal to the technology class, their strongest supporters remain the social-progress bloc which may be overrepresented online but is just too small of a force to win in elections.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 year ago

The problem is that everyone who sits down to think about swing voters realizes the same thing: tariffs are going to crash the economy, DOGE is going to cut Social Security, and Congress is going to cut Medicaid. But none of these have happened yet, while other bad things swing voters care less about have happened.

So there's a fundamental tension. You can focus on the current situation to the exclusion of swing voters and their interests, or focus on swing voter interests and sound like you're lamely ignoring what's happening right now. It's a hard balance to strike, and while people make noise about it online I think most elected Dems understand everyone's trying as best they can.

sepositus4• 1 year ago

I'm still scratching my head at how some people are surprised by this overreaction. It seems a lot of people think the current fawning over authoritarianism came out of a vacuum. All of the sudden a majority of America came out of stasis and flocked to the polls to elect a dictator.

dclowd99012• 1 year ago

Well, if you look at it from the perspective of faithless reporting like that from Fox News and Newsmax, the information pipeline has been selling a narrative that the left has been on an authoritarian tear since Obama. The newscasts are chilling: every one of them for more than two decades has taken a position that the left is an existential threat to the United States.

With that kind of context, it's really no wonder there's support from the right for an authoritarian leader. They honestly just think they're playing the democrats game and playing it better.

It _is_ a bit odd there's a complete lack of reflection on some of these moves though, but I suppose so long as the current executive branch veers away from changing the second amendment and manages to carve out enough exceptions for their most ardent supporters, all's good from their standpoint.

sepositus4• 1 year ago

A lot of people don't like being told to what say/think/do. It turns out if you bully those people enough they elect a dictator. It wasn't and still isn't a surprise to me.

barfingclouds• 1 year ago

The left has been authoritarian. Rewind the clock to 2018, and speak your mind freely on a college campus and at some point you’ll say something that makes you lose your job. That’s one of many examples of the left being actually authoritarian.

I’m not saying two wrongs make a right and I’m not justifying the current administration. But if we look to how we got here, that’s a lot of why, if not mostly why.

mig392• 1 year ago

I don't understand. This is literally what people voted for, isn't it?

rudedogg• 1 year ago

The US Government has checks and balances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_an...

mig392• 1 year ago

I understand that, but the people literally voted for someone who promised to get rid of checks and balances, and rule as a dictator. Isn't that what they wanted?

outer_web6• 1 year ago

I don't think he is condoning it or saying it's legal, simply that it was a campaign promise being fulfilled.

King-Aaron• 1 year ago

It's all pretty cooked. It's honestly stunning to see how these cult-like followers have allowed themselves to be completely oblivious to what's going on.

From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.

pfo322• 1 year ago

Its cooked everywhere. Thank the Attention Economy. All sides are trapped by in a fight over finite Attention. Its like the world war but instead of land its Views/Clicks/Likes.

Since Attention is a finite non growing pool the trap is set.

One day some one gets all the fish and another its someone else. Anyone who has any sense wouldn't waste any energy being part of such a stupid game cause its eventually lose lose.

So the game is of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.

Until all sides agree on a new Attention allocation mechanism everything shall remain cooked.

boroboro4• 1 year ago

While I’m with you on attention economy I think it’s simplification of what’s going on:

– we had very dysfunctional legislature for last 20+ years

– quality of life is falling for majority of people

This contributes to feeling of unfairness in the society which pushes authoritarian and populist ideas.

tdb78932• 1 year ago

I think it's a mistake to think people are just oblivious. It's not a majority but there are actually a lot of people aware of these things and celebrating them.

One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution. You can see the retribution, often personal, against people conspiring against him in a lot of his speeches and policies (he's even blamed immigrants before for bringing drugs and "poisoning the blood of our country" and implied they are conspiring against the US) and there are people that care about that retribution more than rights or other ideals.

I could write pages more about how you can hear how the idea of victimization and retribution is part of his talks on tariffs, foreign policy, immigration, "DEI", law offices, the judicial system, etc but obviously it would be too long for an internet comment. Once I noticed it I started seeing it everywhere with him.

zmgsabst4• 1 year ago

Trump isn’t the source of that, but a manifestation of it.

People are tired of, eg, systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites (euphemized “DIE”) or courts which have outspoken activists refusing to enforce the law against career criminals.

They want it to stop — and since elites refused to onboard that correction, they rallied behind a strongman to punish them.

ryandrake• 1 year ago

One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution.

Imagined victimhood and a persecution complex are core, foundational pillars of MAGA. The whole movement is about how they are all the victims of the elite, persecuted by the media, harassed for their beliefs, and that the whole world is against them. Then, the minute they got power, their first priority was griefing others and cruelty to all of their favorite out-groups. There really is nothing more to it than pretend victimhood, leading to retribution.

linktraveler3• 1 year ago

Nothing in this article actually makes a case for infringing upon the first amendment.

"...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges."

Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences?

Should students who hate America be allowed to study here?

Should employees who don't work be fired?

Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits?

If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment?

You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.

The winning will continue.

-2008: Obama -2012: Obama -2016: Hillary -2020: Biden -2024: Trump

SkipperCat2• 1 year ago

Where’s the due process? Executive orders for this stuff are not the way forward for a democracy to exist. We have laws, we should use them and let the judicial system work. You’d want the same for yourself if the roles were reversed.

knowaveragejoe4• 1 year ago

You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.

A circus isn't effective, but it's entertaining at least.

linktraveler3• 1 year ago

I don't deny the circus.

Establishing Government (perplexity): "No president has moved faster than Donald Trump in 2024 to appoint Cabinet members and agency heads. By November 23, 2024, just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump had announced nominees for all 15 executive agencies, far outpacing his first term and other recent presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who took nearly 40 days to reach similar milestones. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed Trump’s nominees at a faster rate compared to his first term and Biden’s early days in office."

Illegal immigration: down to near 0

DOGE: Cut $260B in spending as of this post: https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Is there a counterpoint to this?

Something Obama, Biden, Clinton, or GW Bush did in first 100 days?

justanotheratom8• 1 year ago

"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election"

Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation?

edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7

strix_varius• 1 year ago

All videos are edited.

skoopie3• 1 year ago

They cut and pasted answers from a different question so that it sounded less like her usual word salad non-answers. No biggie.

drewrv• 1 year ago

Every video that has been broadcast has been edited I'm not sure what your point is.

justanotheratom8• 1 year ago

Harris' response to a question was edited, that is not fine.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7

beeflet• 1 year ago

This is weird that you are citing an LLM

justanotheratom8• 1 year ago

If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.

Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...

MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.

Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...

PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...

DangitBobby11• 1 year ago

Only one deflection? Nice, so I take it you have no rebuttal for the rest and concede the point of Trump's assault on the 1A!

esalman3• 1 year ago

It started with the Free Palestine protesters. Tesla protesters are next. Citizens will be shipped to El Salvador, non-citizens to where they came from.

outside12343• 1 year ago

Not if we protest en mass and all stick together. The thing that will kill us is if we obey in advance and don’t do these things.

esalman3• 1 year ago

As far as I can see nobody is sticking by the F1 students who are being deported.

mbs159• 1 year ago

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he will use the military on the "enemy from within". Protests could end up looking like what we see in Belarus and Russia - masked "police" shows up and they beat them up and / or take them away.

starik36• 1 year ago

If those protesters were harassing Jewish students (as happened at various times during these protests) or openly supporting a designated terrorist organization, they should be referred to law enforcement.

skoopie3• 1 year ago

We should treat the Free Palestine and Tesla protesters the same way J6 protesters were treated. Throw them in prison until the next Democrat president pardons them.

rcpt2• 1 year ago

J6 wasn't a protest

al_borland2• 1 year ago

What many of them are doing isn’t a legally protected form of protesting.

Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.

Tesla protesters are vandalizing the vehicles of private citizens and burning down dealerships. This is also illegal, and due to its political goals, it seems to fit the textbook definition of terrorism.

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Had we not spent years tolerating these illegal forms of protest, maybe people would remember these are in fact illegal, and wouldn’t be so emboldened to keep doing them.

If someone wants to protest, that is their right. If someone is protesting by infringing on the free movement of other people, or using intimidation and violence to stir up fear to get people to comply with their ideology… that crosses well established lines.

vvpan3• 1 year ago

You are taking large movements with at least tens of thousands of participants and cherry-picking actions of a few people, you are contributing to the free speech problem by making false associations.

ks2048• 1 year ago

Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.

If someone does something illegal, they can be charged with a crime and the legal process (access to a lawyer, courts, etc). It's not complicated and should not have any exceptions.

TOMDM10• 1 year ago

If someone is breaking the law, they should be charged with a crime.

How are we at the point where that statement is a partisan issue?

aredox6• 1 year ago

... Excuse me sir, could I interest you into what happened on January 6 of 2020?

greenie_beans5• 1 year ago

writing an oped isn't illegal. why is that grounds for being detained?

insane_dreamer6• 1 year ago

Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.

Yeah, and so? Is shutting down roads a "threat to US national security" and therefore warranting arrest without due process and green card revocation? The protesters should be charged with whatever city laws (certainly it's not a federal offense) they broke, and fined or whatever.

lobsterthief• 1 year ago

Most Tesla protests have been peaceful. There have been THOUSANDS of them the past few months in cities across the US. You’re cherry-picking the violent ones that get much louder reporting.

YZF3• 1 year ago

You mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF2MHRtONo4 and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBk3T935CI is just free speech?

Here's the deal. You want free speech don't intimidate, threaten and vandalize.

I own a Tesla. I bought one because I wanted an EV to reduce my emissions and that was the best one (years ago). Your right to free speech doesn't trump (heh, see what I did there) my right to be safe.

EDIT: FWIW I am not American. Where I live there is no such thing as "free speech" like in America. We also don't all carry guns like in America. You guys do you. But I'm pretty sure the my links are not free speech, even in America.

beej713• 1 year ago

No, that is obviously not "just free speech". Sheesh. C'mon, man.

greenie_beans5• 1 year ago

just to be clear, they aren't just detaining palestine protesters. they are also detaining labor activists: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/03/26/ice-is-kidnapping-imm...

government is going after activists for other political issues, not just palestine protestors

reboot81• 1 year ago

Watching the debacle from across the pond, wondering what everyone voting for Trump feared in the alternative. Kamala, extreme leftist? Guess youve never heard of USSR. And even not they were extreme.

dclowd99012• 1 year ago

Right, but it's what their news outlets tell them is going on. They fully believed Kamala was a threat to their gun ownership, and her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.

LPisGood• 1 year ago

That is all true, but it can’t be understated just how much people didn’t like her as a person. People didn’t really find her funny or charismatic.

Obviously policy matters very little here; personality is king and many Americans love Trump’s personality. It’s why none of the policy arguments do much to sway anything.

People like the man, and they can dislike his policies separately, but they only dislike the policies that really impact them personally in a negative way. They like the man enough to just support whatever less visible policies he has.

I think race, gender, class, and culture have a lot to do with these preferences.

Jensson• 1 year ago

her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.

Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to, so if you look at leaders of countries most women are right wing. So if anything it is the left that has an issue with female leaders, not the right.

silisili• 1 year ago

I'm hesitant to write politics here because of how many people write scathing and rude comments, but I'll attempt to give a US perspective on the last election.

I think there were just a series of events that led to nobody getting excited by D in the election, allowing Trump to win. Especially when you consider that moderates and NPAs always decide the elections.

Inflation was out of control(by US standards) for Biden's entire term. In fairness this started at the end of Trump1 but carried on for years. Will Trump fix it? Who knows, I think most expect tariffs to make it even worse.

Immigration seemed unchecked, which itself probably wouldn't have been a huge issue, but news and social media 'investigators' came out about how much the gov was giving them - money, housing, healthcare, etc. Struggling and newly struggling people got really, really angry about money being spent there. That was a super easy play for R's all election season.

But the nail in the coffin IMO was the debate disaster, CNN turning on Biden as not fit to be president overnight, then last minute odd resignation letter via Twitter. Then injected with a candidate nobody had a say in, to boot.

So in short, a combination of people angry at 'the system' rebelling, and a candidate without much real support. I don't feel like R's won the election as much as I feel like D's imploded themselves. For the sake of not having an uniparty, I hope they rethink things. I feel like Newsom making a more moderate shift is a play in that direction, we'll see.

Just my .02.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 year ago

There's no need to wonder, as polls of which issues voters find most important are common in the US. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-... if you're curious.

potsandpans• 1 year ago

People didn't vote for trump because they were afraid of kamala.

People _didn't_ vote for kamala because shes a milquetoast unqualified candidate that represents a party that has lost touch with it's base. It turns out, "just vote (for whoever we decide on at the dnc)." Is not a viable strategy.

ziml77• 1 year ago

In my section of the internet a lot of people who would have voted for the Democrats didn't vote at all. Many of them already disliked Harris because she's not a socialist or communist. And what pushed them to completely dismiss her was her siding with Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. They felt like voting for her was them voting in support of genocide.

Unfortunately it was hard to convince people that was a terrible reason because not countering Trump votes with votes for Harris was just ensuring a Trump win. Which of course meant the same outcome or worse for Palestinians and also awful shit for Americans and other countries that rely on the US.

anonu• 1 year ago

I would like to think: what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There's an argument to be made that the US system of checks and balances will be stronger after all of this. We just haven't seen it in action, yet...

outer_web6• 1 year ago

Considering the impact of the immunity decision last year I'm thinking that adage isn't actually true.

Conscat5• 1 year ago

I believe the pendulum will swing back eventually, but I don't know anyone in my communities who believes minority groups will come out of this doing better than they were in 2020. The Democrat party is giving no indication that they intend to strengthen protection for minority groups, especially transexual people, when they are able to.

linktraveler3• 1 year ago

Everyone who disagrees with the article gets flagged.

You are not the "free speech" people you pretend to be.

SkipperCat2• 1 year ago

And this is fine because hacker news is just a web site and getting flagged may damage one’s ego but it doesn’t impact your freedom. Law firms being attacked by POTUS for their lawful actions, networks being frivolously sued and people being arrested without due process are the issue here.

fundad5• 1 year ago

lol, the article is now flagged because it spoke against dear leader.

totallymike2• 1 year ago

See this other HN thread for concrete examples of how the climate is currently fucked. I genuinely can’t tell if the commenters are trying to be satirical, but the point seems moot.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657

DangitBobby11• 1 year ago

I think you linked the wrong thread, this one is about DOGE.

totallymike2• 1 year ago

No, that’s the correct thread. It looks like the comments I saw have been deleted, but folks were accusing the author of the article of terrorism and anticipating the author’s arrest for having written it

Edit* turns out the comments are still there, just flagged and dead.

Animats• 1 year ago

Recent win: US Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to New York Times vs. Sullivan. So less than four justices even thought it was worth looking at this issue again.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-ca...

whatever1• 1 year ago

As a European for decades in the US, it is the first time in my life that I feel fear for expressing my opinions.

Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?

_yrnr• 1 year ago

Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?

They claim to allow deleting the account (just the name, they keep the comments up), but in practice they ignore requests. Source: personal experience.

zmgsabst4• 1 year ago

Is that even legal for a CA based company?

bediger40002• 1 year ago

That's a feature many have begged for, for years.

k12sosse2• 1 year ago

Too late, they're already archived and you're better off buying that plane ticket North.

vasco• 1 year ago

You can demand it under gdpr right to be forgotten and see where that gets you. Even being a US site they have to be compliant for EU users.

qiqitori• 1 year ago

Comments are not personal data. You can't publish a book and then GDPR your publisher to stop publishing it.

tasuki• 1 year ago

Even being a US site they have to be compliant for EU users.

Why? What happens if not? EU-wide DNS ban? I haven't seen that yet...

Raed667• 1 year ago

HN is archived by tens of 3rd party DBs (for better or worse) so requesting a full deletion is a step but it won’t scrub everything

silverliver• 1 year ago

Doing something is better than nothing.

comrade1234• 1 year ago

I mule my account every few years. Just post something super-offensive to get banned and then create a new account.

yubblegum3• 1 year ago

We have no idea about YCombinator's retention of IP addresses and logs.

ta86453• 1 year ago

It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration.

"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",

"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",

"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",

It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.

outside12343• 1 year ago

Don’t both-sides this. 99% of the attacks have been under the Trump administration.

ta86453• 1 year ago

Trump is obviously attacking free-speech, but the attacks have been going on by both sides. The examples I gave are _very_ prevalent and common, and not coming from the Trump camp. Very few people seem to actually believe in free speech, when it comes to protecting their political rivals... which is the only place the principle actually much matters.

Conscat5• 1 year ago

"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences"

This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.

ta86453• 1 year ago

Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.

anal_reactor4• 1 year ago

Of course people are allowed to say MAGA-phobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.

raxxorraxor20• 1 year ago

Not it is not and it is also contradicting the definition of freedom of speech, first sentence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

"Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate.

Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.

giantg23• 1 year ago

It's a little surprising to see the reactions. It's some sort social phenomenon. It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time. Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways). However, almost all of these actions have precedent in prior administrations. It would be nice if we can strengthen protections against abuses, but my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

Deporting people for an op Ed has precedent in which administration?

russdill2• 1 year ago

Plenty, and it's all pretty ugly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

johnnyanmac13• 1 year ago

It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time.

Lucky 10k: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways).

Yes, that is a big factor. Big difference between covert guantanomo bay arrests and outright making which house announcements about El Salvadar. They are saying the quiet part out loud and people can't ignore it any longer.

my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.

Well yes. Policy is a full time+ job and most people don't have the time and energy to watch every action of their government.

It's up to the reps elected to keep that momentum up.

nimish• 1 year ago

Ehh lots of things being said that were being forced unsaid before 2025 so I think you're wrong Krebs.

amitport3• 1 year ago

Well, it didn't start in a vacuum.

mmaunder• 1 year ago

While I think many of us here abhor political content on HN, Brian has taken a data driven approach to this post and provided an excellent roundup of facts and events. Conservatives and liberals both would be well advised to read his excellent roundup. He is doing this at great personal cost to his readership, if the comments on his blog are anything to go by.

grandempire2• 1 year ago

If the signal story mattered they would lead with the content of the messages. Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained. Since the story is reversed, and the public is not talking about what is said, I'm guessing nothing happened.

magicalist3• 1 year ago

they would lead with the content of the messages

They did, but with some information only described, but then they were called liars so they released the content that showed those accusing them of lying were in fact lying.

Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained

The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.

grandempire2• 1 year ago

The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.

Yep. It’s the whole story.

collingreen2• 1 year ago

What a bizarre take. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

rcpt2• 1 year ago

many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituent

I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is

dragonwriter2• 1 year ago

I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is

They do and have been exploiting it for a while.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220...

“House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year’s midterms.

“A number of Democrats who ventured this month into GOP territory said they liked what they saw: anxious voters who are up in arms over both President Trump’s dismantling of the federal government and the reluctance of the majority Republicans to provide a check on executive power.

“Encouraged by their experiences, Democrats say they not only intend to return to those battleground districts, they’re also eyeing plans to broaden their range in the weeks and months to come. The Democrats’ campaign arms, in some cases, are helping to coordinate the effort.”

CharlieDigital• 1 year ago

I think we are severely underestimating what Democrats are up against here.

A recent episode of This American Life Ten Things I Don't Want to Hate About You[0] gives just a absolutely mind bending look at just how bad the situation is with a subset of the American public.

The synopsis is that the father in this family has been so taken by conspiracy theories that it's breaking apart a family. To settle things, he makes a $10k bet with his son over a series of 10 events he believes will absolutely happen in 2024. As the clock ticks over to 2025 and not a single prediction came true, he simply moves the goal posts and does not admit any wrong, even as his wife divorces him and his daughter becomes estranged.

It's a showcase of how absolutely lost in the flood of actual fake news some Americans have become and it's scary because these folks that are divorced from reality are typically the highly motivated voter that actually goes out there and votes.

My point here is that if you listen to this and think "Democrats have an opportunity", then you may not understand just how bad it is and that democracy is up against a cult.

[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/854/ten-things-i-dont-want-...

yubblegum3• 1 year ago

We need a new political party not beholden to a certain lobby. From my perspective (which spans decades) this has been a (somewhat barely) disguised pas de deux.

harry88• 1 year ago

Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files and really try to understand what was in them and why it was horrifying. Seems many people wanted to pretend they were nothing because it didn't suit their partisan narrative. We're seeing the same kinds of justification now just with different partisans.

If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.

Aurornis4• 1 year ago

Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files

Or we could skip the whataboutism that tries to go back to a prior administration, and instead focus on the current administration’s actions which are demonstrably far worse.

harry88• 1 year ago

What about we stand on _principle_. What about we criticise and oppose /all/ transgressions of that principle. What about we all do it more loudly for whatever tribe we have some loose membership of and don't excuse it because it is politically expedient.

That's whataboutism nowadays.

danavar2• 1 year ago

Exactly. Let's not forget the real attempts at the government's internet censorship of previous administrations. Nobody seemed to care about that then.

Like give me a break. The previous admin took steps towards censoring real information that would be politically harmful to them, and now we're supposed to feel bad about the current admin who is taking productive steps against antagonist agents within our country?

I get that the law in this country is pliable and a nuanced subject but I'd rather deal with the latter issue - where our government is challenging the boundaries of the 1st amendment against our own enemies rather than their own people lol

croes7• 1 year ago

Let me get this straight what the previous government did was wrong but what they now do is right because it’s against antagonist agents?

Sorry but that sounds like out of the fascist playbook.

They all just fought against „enemies“, but they decided who was declared an enemy.

In the end everybody who said anything against them was declared an enemy.

TOMDM10• 1 year ago

The Twitter files that document the FBI requesting takedown of posts and accounts, Twitter internally debating the request, refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences?

Those Twitter files?

Meanwhile Trump is suing pollsters for publications he doesn't like; extorting law firms for representation as reparation for them representing clients that sued him, who is deporting lawful permenant residents without due process for speech that is protected.

How can you possibly look at these and think they are in any way equivelant?

tstrimple5• 1 year ago

The Twitter files are basically the same as the Mueller report at this point. Folks completely ignorant to the topic and who have never read them hold them up as proof that they were right all along. Never mind that if they could actually read and understand the documents, they would realize they show the opposite of what they claim.

harry88• 1 year ago

refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences

The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters.

It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.

k12sosse2• 1 year ago

I don't think things are going to get any better before they're really, really much worse. Nobody's going to do anything until someone does way too much.

This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.

move-on-by• 1 year ago

If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration.

As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up.

I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.

selfhoster• 1 year ago

There's always something scary for those whose team lost the last election.

semicolon_storm• 1 year ago

And treating politics like team sports is the root of the problem

OccamsMirror2• 1 year ago

Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet.

Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.

strogonoff2• 1 year ago

It used to be that you had to mingle with people, and if you had a particularly crazy take on reality there was a dynamic where 80% of people around you IRL would not really take you seriously because respected people didn’t—especially if you were otherwise not appearing to be a socially well-integrated and productive person. This had a chilling effect on extreme views and helped somewhat bring the outliers in, so to speak. Now, even if you never leave your house, cannot hold a job or a relationship, you can find any number of people who share your extreme views, and the more extreme the views the tighter the community (due to justified exclusion IRL).

Naturally, it did not take too long for other people exploit that newly found dynamic in context of democracy and use tech to manipulate such people with fringe views for own short-term gains.

h0l0cube5• 1 year ago

Hot take: it's a failure of democratic competition. The US doesn't have proportional representation, and it's long maintained a duopoly of two electable parties, and a first-past-the-post system that makes any vote for a 3rd party a waste. This, coupled with the Democrats not fronting up a reformist candidate when they could have (Sanders shot down twice), permitted the only anti-establishment candidate to win, and that happened to be a callous individual that aligns with minds as cruel as his own. (By his own admission, 'the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them'.) It's hard to believe that even die-hard Republican politicians are totally on-board with this reformist agenda that's going to completely decimate the economy, but most certainly, if anyone is winning by the end of it, it will be them.

That said, if there's ever another free and fair US election, the Democrats have a real opportunity to put a candidate that can actually deliver remaking the country, but in a way that lifts all boats, and without throwing out hard-won democratic freedoms. But I'm pretty certain they'll just front up another establishment candidate with a progressive face.

yubblegum3• 1 year ago

Actually Steve Jobs, in an interview, strongly argued against a wild west internet and called for "authoritative news organs" iirc. It was on YT a few years ago, may still be there.

deepfriedchokes• 1 year ago

People believe what they want to believe.

Political tribalism is the new religious outlet, since the old religions are failing their purpose. It’s in-group/out-group ego feeding behavior. The psychology of the faithful doesn’t change, since the underlying issue isn’t being addressed; the expression of it changes.

Similar to how addiction psychology doesn't go away unless dealt with, addiction psychology just changes how it’s expressed.

facile32326• 1 year ago

I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it.

As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.

lblume• 1 year ago

Free speech should be considered a non-negotiable human right. You can't just trade those off against each other. The distinction into "materially meaningful" rights in my opinion just shows how easily both types of rights are taken for granted until noticeably revoked.

facile32326• 1 year ago

It's not even a coherent concept the way westerners use it. I would be much happier if we called it "acceptable speech" or something to acknowledge you can't call for dismembering your Tutsi cockroach neighbor. Idk why, maybe I'm just being sensitive.

"Free speech" as a right seems pretty useless without material rights. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What does that even look like?

But we can trace all this crappy formulation of civics to the brain rot that is worshiping the enlightenment and founding fathers. Why is this still a thing in 2025? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to care about Jefferson or Locke or the actual basis of our society, Hobbes. We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.

cowhow• 1 year ago

Just like oxygen, free speech is one of those things that you don't miss until you lose it. You use it everyday without even realizing it.

In a country without free speech protections, expressing an unpopular opinion about a political party or hot topic can get you thrown in prison. Look at the Syrian Assad regime or the current Chinese administration. People are arrested for merely being negative in social media posts. I can totally see the US going in that direction.

You can be nonchalant about this if you want, be there are very good reasons people are getting up in arms about this erosion of our protections.

facile32326• 1 year ago

What's the point without a political pathway to remediate anything? We haven't done basically anything to fix what we were complaining about 50 years ago.

At least in prison they'll feed me or kill me, two things they'll otherwise refuse to do until you commit a crime.

Frankly, I would prefer a world where everyone agreed the government was shit but nobody could complain. It's better than people openly defending evil people and calling it the height of democracy. If that's democracy give me the PRC any day.

cvz4• 1 year ago

The reason you don't see "free speech" used for those causes isn't because they don't rely on free speech. It's because advocacy for them is so clearly protected as free speech that it isn't even a question. There have been times when that protection was a question in the U.S., like when protesting wars or segregation laws.

Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.

Edited to remove an unwarranted statement at the beginning of this comment.

facile32326• 1 year ago

Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.

Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will.

So I say, fuck it, let's just all accept that government is shitty and mostly exists to squeeze us for money. We can finally stop acting like it's representative of us. When y'all finally have had enough riots will work just as fine as they did before.

siliconc0w• 1 year ago

I think a lot of people convinced themselves he was going to be as restrained as in Trump 1 and we'd get a fairly standard pro-crypto, pro-business, tax cutting Republican. Instead we've elected a mad king.

webninja2• 1 year ago

He’s helping make the left care about free speech again. Something they wanted to continue censoring.

kacesensitive• 1 year ago

Ah yes, nothing screams “free speech hero” like a guy who tried to censor the press, punish critics, and begged Twitter to silence his enemies.

gblargg2• 1 year ago

This is called suppressing "disinformation" in the other circles.

webninja2• 1 year ago

You completely missed what I was saying.

indus• 1 year ago

Maybe the T-800 comes back reprogrammed to save us.

He is feeling out of place, his stock is down, his popularity has tanked.

He probably got what he wants from the current admin.

Hope it doesn’t get late.

kopirgan9• 1 year ago

Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.

If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.

If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors

I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.

vvpan3• 1 year ago

Who invented cancel culture?

galaxyLogic7• 1 year ago

What is "cancel culture"?

Boltgolt• 1 year ago

Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist

kopirgan9• 1 year ago

That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason.

As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.

Aurornis4• 1 year ago

Not really clear what this article is about.

The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda.

If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.

This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal?

If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.

If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense.

If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors

Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism.

And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”).

Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant.

I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.

I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.

kopirgan9• 1 year ago

I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be.

It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.

By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.

galaxyLogic7• 1 year ago

The right is now at loss because they are the party in power. Yet they try to hang on to their hate of Biden and Hillary and even Obama. But people can see that it doesn't matter how bad previous governments may or may not have been. What matters is how "good" the current government is.

chriscrisby2• 1 year ago

This is partisan garbage, I’ve been in infosec circles long enough to see democrats always get a pass for doing the same thing republicans do. Selective outrage is fake outrage.

knowaveragejoe4• 1 year ago

False equivalency works!

danavar2• 1 year ago

gblargg2• 1 year ago

Did Krebs comment on government suppressing discussion during COVID? The article reads like suddenly there are attacks on freedom of speech. It's been raging over the past four years.

DangitBobby11• 1 year ago

It's amazing, as a kid I always wondered how fascism could take hold in a country, in history books they seemed to lay out the steps so clearly it should be easy to see and coming and stop it. Now that it's happening here, I now wonder how countries ever managed to keep fascism at bay. All it really takes is an unscrupulous public in love with its own opinions, and someone with a big voice who will tell them comforting fictions.

chriscrisby2• 1 year ago

As yes the tyranny of small Government

willmadden• 1 year ago

This submission violates the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jjulius• 1 year ago

Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

refusingsalt3• 1 year ago

i guess it is off topic.

mayrio• 1 year ago

This is a case of things must get better before they get worse… Basic right in america have been declining for years now. And now its happening all at once.

The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation.

This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.

croes7• 1 year ago

Don’t you mean get worse before they get better?

Most of the time these means people getting killed.

The human rights resolution needed the terror of WW2

galaxyLogic7• 1 year ago

How do you recognize a fascist, or whatever you call people who want less rather than more democracy?

I think a good rule is this: They won't agree to disagree with anybody.

Why? Because they have to suppress free speech of others, to gain and stay in power.

travisgriggs• 1 year ago

Back and forth.

Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again."

Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion.

I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.

areyouliving2• 1 year ago

It's true, but they're victims of mass manipulation by omnipresent media. They subject themselves to it, but it's hardly by choice when there are thousands of people spending trillions of dollars and millions of working hours to indoctrinate them.

jari_mustonen• 1 year ago

Free speech has been in retreat for years. The previous administration just targeted a different flavor of 'offending speech' and cracked down hard on it.

As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.

I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.

croes7• 1 year ago

There is no free speech without limits unless you think speech as such has no effect.

Otherwise the speech of one can silent the speech of orhers.

strogonoff2• 1 year ago

If using Signal to discuss a bombing was done to evade FOIA, how many other cases do American citizens remain unaware of (and probably can never learn about)?

0xbadcafebee• 1 year ago

It's called Project 2025. It's designed to destroy the checks and balances of the US government. They aren't hiding it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_au...

What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.

seek• 1 year ago

In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.

`Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS.

Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.

croes7• 1 year ago

Because that’s the claim of the lawsuit.

alsaaro• 1 year ago

Even if true this is irrelevant, the first amendment is agnostic to truth or good propriety.

benmmurphy• 1 year ago

I think these lawsuits with large damages against media companies are going in a bad direction. But this also includes the lawsuit against Alex Jones and the Covington kids lawsuit but I don't think you will find many people that have some kind of consistent principal when dealing with this. They will just have some magic rule that will mean the law suit against Alex Jones is good and Trump's law suit is bad or vice versa. There is even a similar thing going with this list of 1A violations from the current administration. Similar things went on with the last administration but I didn't see a Kreb's summary post but maybe I missed it.

insane_dreamer6• 1 year ago

Unless a lawsuit is settled with either a ruling or an admission of guilt in a settlement, it is a "claim".

It's the same reason news articles always use "alleged".

bufio• 1 year ago

Perhaps being in favour of free expression is finally about to stop being unfashionable and offensive.

kleton5• 1 year ago

I remember when the last administration jailed Douglass Mackey for tweeting

guelo• 1 year ago

He had a fair trial and a 12 member jury of his peers agreed that he was suppressing the vote.

kleton5• 1 year ago

I have a feeling if the current administration had a problem with your social media posts, maybe you said something about Tesla that they could construe as supporting the current protests and/or vandalism, and similarly venue-shopped for a federal court, say East Texas, (using the U.S. v Mackey precedent to claim jurisdiction because some fiber carrying data might go through it) where the 12 jurors would be on team red, you would not feel like it would be a fair trial if you got convicted.

potamic• 1 year ago

He created fake election campaign posters enticing people to cast their vote via some phone number. I think it's a little disingenuous to say he was jailed for tweeting. It's like saying someone charged with a DUI was charged for "driving their car around".

kleton5• 1 year ago

Chipping away a pillar always starts with something that you can say was a good reason.

bufferoverflow• 1 year ago

"President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage."

Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening.

The rest of the article has similar lies.

1970-01-012• 1 year ago

Flagging Krebs is certainly a choice. This was the correct choice, IMHO. I don't like it but I understand this topic will very quickly attract full political discussions and Godwin's law. Go somewhere else for that.

mrbluecoat• 1 year ago

The 22nd Amendment is also under attack: https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...

insane_dreamer6• 1 year ago

Of all the terrible attacks on the 1A, I find this one the most disturbing as it amounts to nothing less than mafia-style extortion:

The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.

braebo• 1 year ago

Was this mirrored anywhere?

southernplaces7• 1 year ago

I'd love to know who the assholes who flag perfectly relevant, useful and well-sourced and debate-worthy posts like these are?

Is there perhaps some coterie of Trump-supporting, Musk-loving orangutans on HN that come out of the woodwork selectively and explicitly to flag content that's in no way outside moderation standards? That aside, the very fact that random readers, for entirely opaque, possibly idiotic and mendacious reasons of their own, can just flag any post is absurd on a site like this that likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being open to broad, reasoned discussion of many, possibly controversial subjects.

How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

Related Stories