[ysofunny]

it's a 1st ammendment issue

in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart

because citizen-president Trump is a power bully

but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself

it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land

[lxgr]

A private company restricting speech is a freedom of speech issue in the general sense, but most certainly not a First Amendment issue.

Of course that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to happen, or that there should not be any laws preventing it.

[cosmotic]

First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue

[zfg]

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does.

If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

[mulmen]

> It is protection by the state.

It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

[zfg]

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

[DrillShopper]

Please read the first amendment:

> 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.

It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.

[zfg]

Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state.

You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.

Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.

[mulmen]

The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds.

If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

[zfg]

Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

[bluefirebrand]

> as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

Really we're going backwards here

Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be

It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are

[mmooss]

What metrics are available on these things? Is it based on a survey?