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

This is actually a really good point, and it's one that a lot of people miss. For Americans, I think the confusion largely comes from the conflation of "the First Amendment" and "freedom of speech". It is correct and valid to say that the First Amendment only applies to the US government. It is incorrect to say that freedom of speech can only be infringed by governments.

The thing is, there's nothing magic about governments. They are just institutions with lots of power. Ideas like "freedom of speech" are meant to level the playing field so that people with little power are able to propose and discuss challenging ideas that can reshape society without being steamrolled by the powerful.

Gawker certainly isn't as powerful as the US government, but they are way more powerful than some guy with a lot of karma on reddit. And if they abuse that power to try to ruin his life, they are stepping on his rights.

For them to do so isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal. But we should express strong disapproval for that behavior.




Yep, you're 100% correct that freedom of speech, and the first amendment aren't one and the same. But what you're advocating is precisely what I'm talking about. Gawker is free to bring a spotlight to this guy's actions, just as you are free to express disapproval for their behavior, and they are free to not care what you think until you make a big enough noise about it that they start losing advertisers. This cycle will continue until someone bows out, which makes you the "more powerful" party that is stepping on Gawker's rights to print what they like.

As long as the government can't limit my freedom when I say something ... I'm good with the above scenario.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: