Re:Improve Your Privacy in the Age of Mass Surveillance
by danso on Saturday June 02, 2018 @08:41PM
(#17217249)
> Things people do on their private time should have absolutely no bearing on where they work, where they live, or where they shop.
Yes, you are correct that the U.S. has passed laws that take a hard line against certain forms of discrimination, especially when it comes to employment and housing.
But even a law as accepted and adhered today as The Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the laws EEOC enforces [0]) is not even 30 years old. And in that brief time, into today, it has ongoing battles and controversies. The definition of "disabled" is most definitely not universally agreed upon [1]. Nor is there an easy consensus about the costs society should bear to follow the ADA. One example on HN that comes to my mind is this thread last year [2], in which many folks (perhaps the majority) argued that UC Berkeley should be allowed to continue producing online lectures without subtitles for the hearing-impaired.
You're probably aware even the most seemingly obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment -- that the government cannot censor people's free speech -- has been a continual matter of litigation and debate over the past century in every domain, from student protests to national security.
And yet you think that an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment -- such that no one in America should suffer negative consequences for expressing beliefs -- would have no complications or unintended consequences. How are you so wrapped up in your own predicament -- having to self-censor because you fear people may dislike and even shun you for your personal opinions -- that you can't see the obvious and immediate ways in which such a law would severely curtail the free speech of everyone, particularly the folks who do not have the resources to go to court?
If you believe the 1st Amendment stops the government from abridging free speech, isn't it also blatantly obvious how problematic it would be to enforce this law? (Hint: who do you think runs the regulators and courts who would be in charge of enforcing and passing judgement?)
Let's pretend we have the power to time travel and go back to rewrite the 1st Amendment; I challenge you to come up with just the words/phrases that would reasonably describe the free speech protection you want.
Yes, you are correct that the U.S. has passed laws that take a hard line against certain forms of discrimination, especially when it comes to employment and housing.
But even a law as accepted and adhered today as The Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the laws EEOC enforces [0]) is not even 30 years old. And in that brief time, into today, it has ongoing battles and controversies. The definition of "disabled" is most definitely not universally agreed upon [1]. Nor is there an easy consensus about the costs society should bear to follow the ADA. One example on HN that comes to my mind is this thread last year [2], in which many folks (perhaps the majority) argued that UC Berkeley should be allowed to continue producing online lectures without subtitles for the hearing-impaired.
You're probably aware even the most seemingly obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment -- that the government cannot censor people's free speech -- has been a continual matter of litigation and debate over the past century in every domain, from student protests to national security.
And yet you think that an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment -- such that no one in America should suffer negative consequences for expressing beliefs -- would have no complications or unintended consequences. How are you so wrapped up in your own predicament -- having to self-censor because you fear people may dislike and even shun you for your personal opinions -- that you can't see the obvious and immediate ways in which such a law would severely curtail the free speech of everyone, particularly the folks who do not have the resources to go to court?
If you believe the 1st Amendment stops the government from abridging free speech, isn't it also blatantly obvious how problematic it would be to enforce this law? (Hint: who do you think runs the regulators and courts who would be in charge of enforcing and passing judgement?)
Let's pretend we have the power to time travel and go back to rewrite the 1st Amendment; I challenge you to come up with just the words/phrases that would reasonably describe the free speech protection you want.
[0] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm
[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=521f98d2-a9b0...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856