undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAbrahamParangi2y ago0 comments

Yeah, no this just ain't so. You may in your personal devotion believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you say that in your private life, no problem. That's your freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Now let's say you clock in to your job as Attorney General and you make it known that you think Christianity is the best and other religions are sad and misguided. Then we have a problem.

You have rights as an individual and you have official duties acting as the government but the government does not also receive your rights by proxy.

0 comments

michaelmrose2y ago

You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.

AbrahamParangiOP2y ago

It is that infringement of the rights of others which is the very issue at hand here! The government undertook actions which caused people to be unable to express their opinions.

That the government was "just expressing their opinion that's totally nonbinding except of course I can exert selective regulatory scrutiny if I feel like it" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

michaelmrose2y ago

The government notifying Facebook that someone posted content contrary to Facebook's TOS doesn't violate the rights of the person violating said TOS. You never had a right to post content that violates the TOS you agreed to in the first place.

You do have a right to share that same content on your own website and the government would have no right to make you take it down.

In no cases were people unable to express their opinions. They were unable to create posts or comments contrary to the terms of service of the site they were using to share said opinions. Much like neither of US may herein violate the terms of Hacker News.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

michaelmrose2y ago

AbrahamParangiOP2y ago

It is that infringement of the rights of others which is the very issue at hand here! The government undertook actions which caused people to be unable to express their opinions.

That the government was "just expressing their opinion that's totally nonbinding except of course I can exert selective regulatory scrutiny if I feel like it" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

michaelmrose2y ago

You do have a right to share that same content on your own website and the government would have no right to make you take it down.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse