Hacker News Reader

Comment by iherbig | Hacker News Reader

I see this sort of defense a lot, and I find it interesting.

Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal.

It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).

View on HN

In the article, the cartoonist mentions "“When it comes to altering someone’s opinion or someone’s voice for the purpose of wealth, I have a problem with that,” said Friday. “It’s our constitutional right to free speech and our constitutional right to free press.” "

The person above you is responding to the claim that this was unconstitutional, which is most certainly is not.

The defence comes up against the claim of infringed right to free speech, which is right there in the article. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

I never said it did in this circumstance.

Yeah, but it's completely accurate though.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

The important part of that being the alt-text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

That's exactly my point. Citing the first amendment is a very weak argument, even weaker when he cites it in a situation where it does not apply. It's so weak that it weakens an argument that otherwise is very strong, that the press is so influenced by money that they cannot handle any amount of criticism, even from a cartoon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com