Hacker News Reader

Comment by bhaak | Hacker News Reader

> Finally, as we hinted at before, even if Netflix is legally allowed to remove the Cuties trailers and clips from Twitter, that doesn’t make it right. It seems that the people who were targeted have a clear fair use defense.

What is it now? Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use. It can't be both right, can it?

> “Is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights,”

I wonder if he has ever read the First Amendment.

The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment.

View on HN

> The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment.

Except Netflix is using a DMCA takedown request, a legal instrument, to remove the disputed content. I don't think it's reasonable to completely write that off as "Twitter is a private company, First Amendment doesn't apply".

Everybody should use legal instruments in disputes. That's the only option in a civilized society, otherwise Netflix could use hired mercenaries to physically target people it doesn't like.

I'll rephrase it for him so it can satisfy your pedantry:

"Except Netflix is using a DMCA takedown request, a legal instrument, to remove the disputed content illegally, because they do not own the copyright to the taken down works."

Still a private company. Still not a First Amendment issue. Still wrong and arguably illegal.

The first amendment doesn’t grant those rights, it merely enumerates and protects them. Just because it isn’t necessarily illegal doesn’t mean rights aren’t being violated.

> Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use.

They did say "even if". I don't think they claimed Netflix is in their rights.

> The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies.

Copyright law as well as other forms of intellectual property are entirely government creations. The First Amendment does apply.

(Mis)using the law to suppress speech is violation of First Amendment rights since it is the state apparatus and power that is behind and so on by the law.

Unfortunately the only way to claim fair use is trough courts.

"What is it now? Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use. It can't be both right, can it?"

It is in fact both. Fair use is a defense in copyright claims and can only be determined by a court, so Netflix can legally claim they believe their IP s being violated and then fair use can then be used as a defense against that claim.

"The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment."

You are correct about the scope of the first amendment but still every user blocked can take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment. They will just lose.

The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies.

But if the government passes a law allowing private companies to SLAAP other parties into silence, that's a-okay, huh? Hey, it's not the government (directly) doing it!

Article definitely written by a nonlawyer.

Author isn't American, but Dutch [1].

[1] https://torrentfreak.com/author/ernesto/

You would probably be surprised that the majority of people don't know that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com