[josteink]

So you’re just going to accept a digital invasion happening and not care, because of some semantics and details somewhere in a document which was penned 200 years prior to the internet being invented?

I don’t know about you, but to me that seems kind of naive and short sighted.

[rstat1]

You can still care about forthcoming invasions of one's privacy and while still understanding that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is only intended to prevent state and federal governments from censoring you. Not corporations.

Semantics are very important when it comes to legal matters.

[macintux]

You can object to the "digital invasion", but using the phrase "freedom of speech" as some sort of magical shield is pointless.

> 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.

The U.S. federal or state governments, courtesy of that amendment, have very limited authority to control your speech. That's where the legal authority ends.

[shkkmo]

> That's where the legal authority ends.

So you see no problem with using jurisdiction washing like Five Eyes to remove our rights?

If we don't tolerate a government we elect abridging our freedom of speech, why would we accept a foreign government doing that?

When foreign governments try to force conpanies to abridge free speech by Americans on American soil, that is an attack on something that we deem important enough to have enshrined in our constitution.

[ghurtado]

> accept a digital invasion

It looks like the possibilities are endless once you throw semantics out of the window, so I could see why you're so fond of doing so.