hacker news shouldn’t be allowed to censor legitimate information or dissenting political opinions, which is what is covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn’t mean you can literally say whatever you want, e.g. flood sites with spam.

Who gets to be the arbiter of "legitimate"?

Judges do when a lawsuit happens under a civil rights violation case.

Judges, who are government employees, would get to determine what speech is legitimate and what is not? No thanks, I’ll take the current system.

That’s literally how all civil rights are enforced.

Judges can only enforce laws passed by Congress. “Congress shall make no law” seems like a much better plan to me.

Judges do not enforce laws, they apply laws to specific situations, otherwise known as interpreting the law.

“Congress shall make no law” is the text of the first amendment, which is in regard to limiting free expression, not expanding it.

Wouldn’t Congress have to make a law for judges to step in here, though? I’m not sure what you are suggesting, exactly.

No. Congress makes a law that declares the right to free speech to be a civil right. Judges would naturally step in when there is a contested violation of that right, as they currently do in all civil rights disputes .

So HN needs a judge to remove spam?

No. HN would be able to remove spam freely. A judge is only involved if the spammer wants to waste money on a lawsuit where they are likely to lose

What is being amended? Use terms that people understand, please. This is an international forum.

Hacker news operates in the US and if the 1st amendment were made a civil right, it would have to obey that law.