Thread

1. rhcom2 · 1790963876 · focus · HN ↗

   > It even went so far as to prohibit websites from offering instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass these checks

   How is that not a blatant first amendment violation?

   1. CJefferson · 1791027117 · focus · HN ↗

      Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, it isn’t automatically first amendment protected to tell people how to effectively commit crimes. It isnt open and shut, but the first amendment isn’t a get out of jail free card.

      1. someonebaggy · 1791028884 · focus · HN ↗

         In other words the first amendment doesn't do what it says it does.

         1. dxdm · 1791038557 · focus · HN ↗

            So what?

            > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

            Note that it does not define what that means. At the same time, it is well established that some forms of speech do come with consequences. I'm sure you can think of commonly accepted examples.

            Laws do not exist outside of courts who interpret them. They made an extra court to do that for the constitution. That's a feature!

            Reality is fuzzy. The problem with insisting on "verbatim" readings of texts is that there is always wiggle room and edge cases, and nobody can agree on what that one, true reading is.

            So, yeah, the first amendment might not say what you think it says, because it only says what it says, and not what it does, because it can only say, and it takes people to do.

            1. someonebaggy · 1791039239 · focus · HN ↗

               What's the point of having a constitution if things you think should be illegal can just be redefined to not be covered by it? The constitution was supposed to provide hard red lines.

               1. dxdm · 1791041130 · focus · HN ↗

                  I can only repeat what I wrote before: There are no hard red lines, only mostly hard, mostly red, and mostly straight lines, not in law, and not even when looking at literal lines that somebody drew or printed.

                  Trying to define something simple and universally applicable is a fool's errand, because people will disagree, and even if it's just you, reality will hit you with exceptions and curveballs if you look hard or wait long enough.

                  The point of the constitution is not to satisfy a need for simple, unchangeable rules that need no interpretation whatsoever.

                  If you look for the point of the constitution, here's one explanation from the horse's mouth:

                  > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                  It's ground rules. They will necessarily require interpretation, as all rules do. What that interpretation should be and how far it should go is part of that, and has been ongoing ever since, as would be expected.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.