6 ms·

Depends almost wholly on how the state Constitution was written. As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution. And it's hardly trying to be North Ko

Depends almost wholly on how the state Constitution was written. As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution. And it's hardly trying to be North Korea. Hysterics don't help, and actually hurt any rational discussion.

atwood22 4y ago
Freedom to publish information is in the constitution.
anonymousab 4y ago
> As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution Rather, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the intents and preferences of very conservative US judges.
- natch 4y ago
mbreese 4y ago
Anything touching the internet is interstate commerce, so in this non-lawyer’s opinion, state laws aren't the last say on the matter. It would be very difficult for any state to block a citizen from saying something online that is legal federally.
edmundsauto 4y ago
Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? That seems so completely absurd, almost like people are turning it into a holy book or fetishizing it.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Why are we using a 200+ year old document Because it’s worked. The alternative, opening up the entire system of government for debate, simultaneously, continuously, predictably tears itself apart in a generation. (That or you wind up with an unwritten Constitution only the elites can decipher.) The Constitution isn’t sacred. But it’s far from worthless as a basis of our society.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    To listen to conservatives, we spent most of the 20th century creating violation after violation of the constitution. If they're correct, then to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        Yes, and many do not like that track record. For instance, allowing women to have abortions, and they now have the ability to alter that track.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > many do not like that track record This is separate from the question of whether the Constitution worked. It did. It produced a stable, powerful society. That some people are dissatisfied doesn’t refute that track record. It just points out there are dimensions on which it failed some.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? Because it and following interpretation provides the boundaries for law in the US. And comparing it to a fetish, or labeling it a 200 year old document, when is has been changed since then (last amended in 1992, still has multiple amendments pending, and can be changed again) is also absurd.
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
    The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations. The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, that makes it harder to change.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly. Also, why would you want to change the root of all laws at any crazy rate? There is a reason Congress makes new laws, and states make new laws, every single year. You should not need to make drastic changes to the base legal framework just because someone invented an internet - you should be able to apply current legal frameworks, and if that is not enough, make small changes to address such changes. Even small legal changes at the Federal and local levels have significant cost to make needed changes throughout society. Now allow tinkerers to make constitutional changes willy nilly, and guess what the cost will be. Or do you think it would be better for short-lived political trends to simply rewrite major sections of the Constitution every few years? That seems like an absolutely terrible way to plan a stable society. >We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, Conversely, maybe the overall framework is pretty good, despite each subgroup not getting their way, so it doesn't need changed to add amendments for every tiny whim.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
Unironically using the term "hysterics" to talk about the outrage regarding an abolition of women's healthcare...
- dontcare007 4y ago
  Abolition? No, just a relinquishing of power from the Federal to the State.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    No, it's a relinquishing of power from women to the state. Hence, abolition is the correct word.

atwood22 4y ago

Freedom to publish information is in the constitution.

anonymousab 4y ago

> As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution Rather, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the intents and preferences of very conservative US judges.

natch 4y ago

mbreese 4y ago

Anything touching the internet is interstate commerce, so in this non-lawyer’s opinion, state laws aren't the last say on the matter. It would be very difficult for any state to block a citizen from saying something online that is legal federally.

edmundsauto 4y ago

Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? That seems so completely absurd, almost like people are turning it into a holy book or fetishizing it.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Why are we using a 200+ year old document Because it’s worked. The alternative, opening up the entire system of government for debate, simultaneously, continuously, predictably tears itself apart in a generation. (That or you wind up with an unwritten Constitution only the elites can decipher.) The Constitution isn’t sacred. But it’s far from worthless as a basis of our society.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  To listen to conservatives, we spent most of the 20th century creating violation after violation of the constitution. If they're correct, then to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        Yes, and many do not like that track record. For instance, allowing women to have abortions, and they now have the ability to alter that track.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > many do not like that track record This is separate from the question of whether the Constitution worked. It did. It produced a stable, powerful society. That some people are dissatisfied doesn’t refute that track record. It just points out there are dimensions on which it failed some.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? Because it and following interpretation provides the boundaries for law in the US. And comparing it to a fetish, or labeling it a 200 year old document, when is has been changed since then (last amended in 1992, still has multiple amendments pending, and can be changed again) is also absurd.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations. The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, that makes it harder to change.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly. Also, why would you want to change the root of all laws at any crazy rate? There is a reason Congress makes new laws, and states make new laws, every single year. You should not need to make drastic changes to the base legal framework just because someone invented an internet - you should be able to apply current legal frameworks, and if that is not enough, make small changes to address such changes. Even small legal changes at the Federal and local levels have significant cost to make needed changes throughout society. Now allow tinkerers to make constitutional changes willy nilly, and guess what the cost will be. Or do you think it would be better for short-lived political trends to simply rewrite major sections of the Constitution every few years? That seems like an absolutely terrible way to plan a stable society. >We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, Conversely, maybe the overall framework is pretty good, despite each subgroup not getting their way, so it doesn't need changed to add amendments for every tiny whim.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

Unironically using the term "hysterics" to talk about the outrage regarding an abolition of women's healthcare...

dontcare007 4y ago
Abolition? No, just a relinquishing of power from the Federal to the State.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  No, it's a relinquishing of power from women to the state. Hence, abolition is the correct word.