Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" => "oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like" arguments.

> Ultimately, if America is no longer the top exporter of culture, what becomes of our identity?

Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture. Often to the detriment of their own. So they have had the same questions: is this just a market, or should there be cultural protectionism?

Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france... "Culture is like chewing-gum, a product like any other." -- Jack Valenti

View on HN

You are mixing up two different groups of people.

> money is speech and there are no values higher

The people (Federalist Society, etc.) who make this argument are the ones who want Saudi/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/... propaganda to dominate or subvert American discourse (with the same subversive power also granted to homegrown plutocrats), as long as they can take a cut or they perceive the resulting public confusion to advance their ideological agenda.

And yes: this is a very short-sighted and dangerous road to travel down, eroding republican norms and civic trust and concentrating power among the unaccountable.

This is an incredibly incendiary,shortsighted and ultimately self defeating point of view. People can fundamentally disagree with you without being evil, stupid or duped.

One only need to look at how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it as a pithy example of how damaging this way of thinking is.

I agree this is incendiary, for the reason that it cuts to the heart of these groups’ deeply contradictory self-image / self-proclaimed values. Nobody likes being told publicly that their actions have led and will continue to lead to serious harm for many people.

I didn’t say they were evil or stupid or duped. Just short-sighted and self-interested with a practically anti-republican ideology (though I might also add: often disingenuous in public discussion, and largely unwilling to take public responsibility for the side effects of their discourse and policy).

> how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it

Universal healthcare was not implemented in the USA because the GOP and allied corporate interests have thrown everything they can against it for 75 years, typically sidelining serious policy debate in favor of slogans and cheap attacks. “Because the USSR has it” has little to do with it, except as a disingenuous excuse.

Republicans and Democrats have both conspired in equal degree to remove everything the new deal stood for in the last 80 years. Were that not the case you wouldn't have the worst homeless epidemics in the bluest cities. The only choice you get is if you put the stars and stripes in your Hummer or the rainbow flag on your Tesla.

It's sad that my generation who made fun of the culture wars of the 90s has taken the culture wars of the 10s seriously enough to vote for Obama not once but twice.

Honestly, even just using this to concentrate power in the hands of few domestically is a dangerous erosion of societal norms. Dis-empowering a populace tends to end badly and result in some pretty strong (usually violent) pressures to restore democracy.

No, I don't think they are mixing them up at all.

We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play. Maybe there's an untried middle road before returning to isolationism and protectionism. Mercantilism 2.0?

China and Indian companies are just doing exactly the same as the US did last century, and the Japanese and Koreans did a few decades back, or Hong Kong a little before that. With all the same worthless complaining points the US often complains about China now, like espionage, lack of IP protection, propaganda, values, poorer quality, they're good for manufacturing but they'll never design etc, as 19th century Europeans were complaining about the US when they were playing catch up at all cost.

200+ years of history proves it will always happen, aided by those currently leading, and biggest countries (wallets) win in the end. Each and every time someone's culture was "being eroded".

The only ideological agenda is some of their views and norms are different to yours. Newsflash: American mores were different to the Japanese and European too so why weren't they "a very short-sighted and dangerous road" too?

> We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play.

The people who “believe in [unregulated and unaccountable] free markets” and the ones who don’t want to “let every [plutocrat] play [at unlimited anonymous propaganda at the expense of ordinary local citizens]” are not the same.

These two groups are more or less independent and have been ideological enemies for generations, and it makes no sense to conflate them.

I don't believe any of the people saying this:

>oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like

Are also saying this:

>money is speech and there are no values higher

Reddit is very young/liberal and I rarely see e.g. an argument in favor of citizens united. Do you have some examples?

> This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" =

“Money is speech” is a view on the US Constitution that is most frequently cited in that language in the US to rally outrage against it as subversive to democracy and facilitating plutocracy, rather than because it is a popular view.

the US constitution only applies to US persons. someone living in china doesn't actually have freedom of speech protected by our constitution.

What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation definitely does have free speech rights, per Citizens United.

Interesting, sort of a Spolsky-esque "leaky abstraction."

It's easy-ish to reason about rights of corporations when they are groups of your own citizens.

When you poke through the veil to ultimate beneficial ownership it's a lot less obviously easy to reason about.

No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.

Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that?

Edit: link please?

Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.

I'm not saying that's not the logic of CU, but that is exactly the fallacy of composition.

This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.

No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization.

The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.

It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish.

It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations.

But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.

People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions.

By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.

Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.

Yes, serious people are really making that argument.

> It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to.

I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.

Can you link some serious people making that argument?

Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180...

> The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government

> The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship

> The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability

> Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

> People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

Which people?

By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid? I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

> I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

I'm not responsible for what you think, but I'll note that in general it's a good idea to look at what people are saying before deciding what you think they're saying.

> By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid?

No; for example, if you apply for a visa and check the box saying "I am planning to engage in a terrorist attack against the United States", I'm pretty sure this argument would have nothing to say about denying your visa. It does invalidate plenty of historical restrictions.

> > People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

> Which people?

Legal people, because it is inline with other comprehensions of how "persons" are afforded rights. Immigration restrictions are not invalid because the right to immigrate (or even technically resettle) are not covered by the constitution. So a presidential order (or governor's order) could be levied to restrict the emigration of people from one region to another - it would possibly run afoul of the terribly broad 9th amendment (basically, you have the right to do anything you should be able to do) but isn't explicitly banned... interesting this would be wholly illegal in Canada which establishes "Freedom of mobility"[1] explicitly.

Laws are fun!

Politicians often make divisive hyperbolic statements with no basis in fact!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

I don't know what people you're talking about, but as I recall, the legal arguments against the Muslim ban hinged on Americans harmed by the ban --- families who couldn't see their Muslim family members, schools that couldn't serve their Muslim foreign students.

It seems pretty straightforward to observe that Chinese residents --- not to mention British residents --- do not in fact enjoy the First Amendment rights of Americans. In fact, neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK. If they did, British libel law would be different, would it not?

It's true that constitutional rights don't generally apply to citizens of other countries, unless they are in the US.

> neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK

But American citizens in other countries still enjoy the same constitutional protections--protections which only apply to actions taken by the US government.

I guess? My point is just: people living in China do not in any practical sense have First Amendment rights.

I see what you're getting at, but there are many things that the US government would love to prevent you from saying that the Chinese or UK government couldn't care less about.

For instance, if you're a US citizen and a resident of the UK or China, you might want to call the President of the US a big baby on twitter. The UK or Chinese government probably wouldn't have a problem with that, but the first amendment protections you enjoy, even while abroad, is preventing the President from calling up twitter and trying to have you banned.

Legally yes, morally no. Citizenship doesn't grant/revoke human rights, and freedom of speech is a human right.

Yes. The basics in the Declaration if Independence are general statements about what rights all humans are given.

Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.

The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision.

Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.

Imagine a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin had bought a sizable share, what do you think the reaction would be?

People aren’t concerned by Chinese propaganda or Cultural exports (positive action) so much as concerned by the possibility they could effect censorship on certain topics they’re sensitive about (negative action).

Why are they concerned about this at all? Tencent doesn't get any say in how Reddit is run, why would they?

That’s what I don’t get. Tencent in particular has seemed like a fairly benevolent investor in Western companies so far, and I don’t see why that would change.

When viewing this through the lens of Chinese Hollywood investments, it's a slow and often unseen process.

Why wouldn't the Chinese using media influence to paint themselves in a better light be concerning? Both positive and negative action, as you described them, distort one's view of the world.

I think we also need to stop assuming the fiction that Reddit isn't already one of the most heavily and arbitrarily censored sites

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the...

Althoug I don't like everything that comes from the US, Im grateful for the ideas that I've got to know thanks to US academics. Also because I find US books on topics I like easier to read, in contrast to other fellow euro authors. It my be the style, IDK.

I think you have a fair point, but "money is speech" is considered quite controversial in the US.

It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media, so it's hardly surprising or unfair that others want to influence this to their favor (by which I mean, perhaps, merely reduce US-centric influence).

> It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media

What does that mean?

">>" can be read as "is much greater / larger than"

I know, I'm just not sure what "American culture is much greater than other culture in popular media" means. Greater how? Says who?

Other cultures tend to be "americanized" more than the other way around.

Just do a Google search for `americanized india` or `americanized china`.

Outsized influence relative to population. Popular media has had a greater influence in spreading American culture than other cultures.

Says me.

Thought it was obvious and conventional wisdom. Feel free to argue the contrary, though.

"Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture."

You don't get out much, do you? There is no denying that the US does have quite an influence on a global scale - culturally and otherwise but there is, much, much more going on that the US is nothing to do with.

I'm a Brit who grew up in some strange places: one was called West Germany and the other was a series of public/private (that probably does not mean what you think it does) schools in the UK. All the schools I attended in Germany were British and public, except for the modern and comprehensive ones or the primary or secondary ones.

I have two employees amongst 25 Brits (Ok, some are English, some are Irish and some are Scots and there are others who don't care, oh and some are Welsh) who are Polish. Their parents lived behind the Iron Curtain.

Well that's nice but the world is turning and although English is still one of the lingua franca (oh the irony - franca - French) there are more changes afoot and those who are able to keep pace will "win" and those who can't ... won't. Britain has always been flexible, linguistically. English is an outrageous amalgam of many languages with a simple structure and vocab. that stretches (with a bit of a wobble) across the entire globe.

Well, my English is and always has been very flexible - I personally take great delight in flexing my language and frankly torturing it through accent or spelling until it delivers the desired result. Some other Englishs are a bit taut and inflexible. Some are so worried about being associated with "British" that they are starting to sound a bit odd and stultifying - they will fall by the wayside.

Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50

>You don't get out much, do you?

>(that probably does not mean what you think it does)

>Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50

Do you think the usage of this tone assisted your argument?

On that note, what's your argument?

Just a brit can be in complete denial about the amount of cultural and linguistic imperialism of America over Europe. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here American cultural influence is strong. Too strong, if you ask me.

American culture influence is certainly growing over places like India and China, but the UK? Have you got any articles on that? I don't live in the UK, so curious to know.

Detail I just learned last year -- lingua Franca doesn't actually refer to French's erstwhile dominance as the language of diplomacy. It was a trading pidgin between franks and Arabs back when Frankish was a thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com