Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I feel like your sense of it might be right. But even then, you can count the number of public sector "companies" (like Fannie and Freddie) on one hand, so it just strikes me as such a bizarre distinction.



In America you can count the number of public sector 'companies' on one hand but in others you cannot.

And every once in a while, government does take over a company, like GM for a long time was a public company.


It's not a bizarre distinction. The discussion is about free speech, and a common talking point has to do with comparing the actions of companies to the protections laid out for free speech in the American first amendment.

However, the first amendment is a restriction on government, not a restriction on private individuals or corporations.


Private equity groups are private. My uncle’s construction company is private. Google isn’t private in any sense that isn’t confusing. Why not just say that the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to corporations? That seems clear to me.

And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really? Isn’t it more likely it’s a tired debate stopper?


>"And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really? Isn’t it more likely it’s a tired debate stopper? "

My feelings exactly. It doesn't accomplish anything and literally adds nothing to the debate. Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines imposed and cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government too? Clearly, we can talk about the spirit of the Bill of Rights and apply that to things that aren't literally the government.


> It doesn't accomplish anything and literally adds nothing to the debate.

It's important because to many people (myself included) the spirit of the freedom of speech referred to in the 1st Amendment is that force (i.e. the exercise of government power) is not an appropriate or legitimate response to speech. Censorship in the broad sense involving hosting decisions by these organizations owned and run by private individuals is not a violation of the freedom of speech, because it does not involve the use of force.

> Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines imposed and cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government too?

Essentially, yes. The general principle applies to any organization which would take it upon itself to impose fines or punishment… which basically means the government, because the government doesn't let anyone else do that in its territory. For any organization other than the government this rule would go without saying, but since the government claims to be able to impose fines and punishment according to its own rules, unfettered by the rules of proportional response and natural law, this limitation must be made explicit.


>And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really?

Yes, that's why people are pre-emptively raising the status of the corporations in question as private - to head off the discussion you're tired of hearing.

Despite that, instead of discussing what the proper ambit of content review should exist, 80% of the thread is still debating whether or not editorial control should exist in the first place; the exact same type of boring, rehashed discussion that adds nothing of value.

Now we're here having a meta discussion about the discussion that ALSO adds nothing of value, so it looks like no matter where we go there's no shortage of ink that leads nowhere :(.


"Man, I really wish people would focus on discussing something more impactful than the same old procedural arguments".

Hah! By saying that you're also not focusing on the real issue. Got You! Hypocrite much? /s


That's why I've got a frowny face there :).




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

Search: