Remix clone Hacker News

That is completely false. There are many exceptions to the first amendment which the court has decided don't abridge the freedom of speech.

A classic example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t...

▲

CamperBob2 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The courts can say anything they want, and they did... but then, so could the authors of the First Amendment, and they didn't.

▲

kube-system 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but the law is whatever congress has passed, whatever the courts have interpreted, and whatever the executive executes. People who read the Constitution and make up their own interpretation clearly missed the part about the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary.

▲

CamperBob2 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but the law is whatever congress has passed, whatever the courts have interpreted, and whatever the executive executes.

My point is, the First Amendment tells Congress not to do that.

What exactly does "shall make no law" mean to you? Be specific.

▲

kube-system 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The text says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law regulating any kind of speech"

The difference between these two, if it isn't already obvious, is that people do not have a right to all types of speech.

Congress can, always could, and always has regulated speech for which people do not have a recognized right to make. Things like fraud or threats are not legal, and Congress is absolutely within their right to make these types of speech illegal, and it would be silly and unfounded to suggest that they couldn't.

Furthermore, your personal interpretation of the text is irrelevant. The Constitution itself delegates the judiciary as the body which can interpret it. And they have, many times, ruled that the 1st has exceptions.

So you may have a strong opinion about what you want the law to be, but you are not correct about what is actually is.

▲

CamperBob2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

(Shrug) You read it the way you like, and I'll do the same. You win, though, because the people who agree with you have all the cool guns.

	▲	kube-system 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I never told you what my opinion was. I'm just saying that, yes, it's the people with the guns who decide what the law is and what it isn't. And the above is what they've said it means. The rest of us merely have opinions.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]