6 ms·

> This is not a 1st amendment issue. It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your da

by zfg 1y ago

> This is not a 1st amendment issue. It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker. If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

mingus88 1y ago
The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.
- MindBeams 1y ago
  It is a capitalism issue. But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
- thayne 1y ago
  It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    > It can be both It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    > The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
    - hunter2_ 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - lxgr 1y ago
    That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. --- That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        In case of a mall however it didn’t hold up: > In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it. A company towns per-se don’t exist anymore in US? There are developer owned neighborhoods though. Mixed zoned areas with everything owned by a corporate entity, so could apply there perhaps?
      - 1y ago
  - brookst 1y ago
    Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?
    - sejje 1y ago
      4th you meant?
      - brookst 1y ago
        Yeah, 4th would have been better.
- kmeisthax 1y ago
  If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.
rdtsc 1y ago
> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery Government does, but other entities don’t. I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here. The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.
- collingreen 1y ago
  You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power. Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

by zfg 1y ago

mingus88 1y ago

The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.

MindBeams 1y ago
It is a capitalism issue. But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
thayne 1y ago
It can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
- rdtsc 1y ago
  > It can be both It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.
- mulmen 1y ago
  > The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
  - hunter2_ 1y ago
    [flagged]
- lxgr 1y ago
  That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. --- That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      In case of a mall however it didn’t hold up: > In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it. A company towns per-se don’t exist anymore in US? There are developer owned neighborhoods though. Mixed zoned areas with everything owned by a corporate entity, so could apply there perhaps?
    - 1y ago
- brookst 1y ago
  Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?
  - sejje 1y ago
    4th you meant?
    - brookst 1y ago
      Yeah, 4th would have been better.
kmeisthax 1y ago
If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.

rdtsc 1y ago

> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery Government does, but other entities don’t. I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here. The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.

collingreen 1y ago
You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power. Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.