Hacker News Reader

Comment by torcete | Hacker News Reader

This is another example that we don't have a real democracy in the UE. It is an illusion of democracy at most.

One of the pillars of democracy, which is separation of powers, is being violated. Only the judicial branch should be able to silence a media, according to the laws created by the citizens trough their representatives in the legislative branch.

What are we seeing here is the executive branch absorbing all the powers, including silencing the media of their choosing.

We think we are better than Russia, but this is not the way.

View on HN

In my American centric view of the separation of powers, that's not how it'd work at all. The legislature would pass a law allowing the banning of media (ignoring the issue if that's a good idea or not for this hypothetical), the executive would enforce the law by deciding to ban RT and justifying their decision with a written record, and RT could then challenge that decision in court (the judicial branch), and they would decide if the executive followed the law, and didn't make an arbitrary and capricious decision. That seems like what's happening here. You don't want the judiciary deciding these things sua sponte, because they're not an accountable branch.

So if I understand correctly, the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says "we are banning RT" instead of saying something along the lines "We are banning any media that dissiminates war propaganda"? Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions? It's a genuine question, I don't really know.

Regarding the judiciary deciding these kind of things. They already decide about many things that impact our lives. I can't see why this case is different.

> Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" [by Congress]. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, [...]"

(A Bill of Attainder is interpreted under current SCOTUS precedent as a law that 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.)

A law that singles out a person or group of people is called a bill of attainder, and violates the constitution. So instead, the legislature will write some criteria that they claim is generic but in fact know only applies to a single institution/company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Again from a US perspective. A law may conflict with other laws or even the constitution and still be passed. The Judicial branch can rule that the law is not valid though. So if this law were to be passed in the US, RT could file a challenge to the law and ask a judge to place an injunction, or a hold on enforcement until it is resolved. Judges can grant those based on the harm, likelihood of success, or other interests involved.

> the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says ...

Yes. Laws just reflect what people think is just. People elect legislators to pass absolutely any law people want.

Except those that violate the US Constitution which is the highest law of the land.

(Yes I know that the Patriot Act violates the constitution and has been law for 20+ years, but I still claim it should be stricken down on constitutional grounds)

US Constitution is also a law. Everything I said applies to Constitution just as to any other law.

I may be mistaken but I was taught that the Constitution was unlike other US laws as it is the foundational law - i.e. the highest law in the land, superseding all other laws. Any law that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional and can be challenged on that ground so as to be stricken down as null and void. What am I missing?

That's right. It doesn't contradict my comments above.

What about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that specifically protects freedom of the press. Wouldn’t such legislation or executive orders be unconstitutional?

This is a complete misreading of the separation of powers. The legislature create the law (ban certain media), the executive implements the law (sends the police to shut down the offices/servers), and then the judicial branch hear challenges to the whether the law itself created by the legislature is lawful, or whether the executive acted lawfully.

What you are thinking about are warrants, which doesn't apply in this case. Warrants are individual orders that are issued to an officer that allows them to perform certain duties that would otherwise not be allowed, like searching inside a private property or seizing property.

There's no free media in Russia anymore. What had remained - had been shut down. If you want to hear 'the other side' - you already do by listening to Putin.

Democratic countries have a right to defend themselves from propaganda especially from a country that have invaded another.

No, that's not how it works and not an indication of failure of democracy.

Europe does have democracy deficit particularly at the EU level but this is not that.

On a side point, RT is usually not that bad as far as propaganda goes, though some speakers/shows are bad.

I'm not sure that they are actually having much effect in the West. If anything, Tucker Carlson is singlehandedly more responsible for flushing out odd and inconsistent views about Russia than anything (the angle changes daily). RT is just not influential.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com