Hacker News Reader

Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth.

He also said he cannot make guarantees that this section will not limit global free speech.

Don't these guys take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office? How is attempting to pass a law to subvert free speech not breaking what they swore to protect?

Politicians and most judges, and almost all lawyers, are paid specifically to come up with plausible sounding reasons why nothing violates the constitution.

It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

Then how, in his right mind, is he pushing for this legislation to go through as written?

This is a rhetorical question, sadly we already know the answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com