Hacker News Reader

Comment by eriri | Hacker News Reader

So this site was a simple timeline of the actions Matt Mullenweg took regarding the recent mess. It makes it clear what kind of deal people are getting into by using WordPress, which is crucial considering that half the internet depends on it. There's no excuse for threatening to doxx the author for this, and it's ironic considering that Mullenweg himself has accused others of stepping on his free speech rights, according to his own blog.

> 2024-10-20

> Matt accuses WP Engine of attempting to curtail his First Amendment rights

https://archive.md/IyFla

View on HN

It sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment. No business can curtail your first amendment rights because they are not the government. And no, twitter, Facebook, etc are not so big that it involves free speech. They aren't the government, period.

> sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment

Yup. Private parties can curtail your right to free speech. But not your rights under the First Amendment.

Not really. You don't have a right to post things on Twitter or shout at people in Wendy's. A twitter moderator or a Wendy's manager isn't the government and you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios. I get what you're saying, but it's not technically correct.

> you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios

One, this is obviously debated.

Two, expectations don’t define rights. I have no expectation of freedom of political expression in North Korea.

> it's not technically correct

It absolutely is. If you’re over at my house and I tell you to stop talking about something, that’s curtailing your free speech. Freedom of speech is a millennias-old concept. So is freedom of assembly. The latter restricts the former, fundamentally, as it implies a right not to listen.

What constitutes a freedom per se is separate from the “inalienable” right. That “natural” right, in turn, is different from the legal right.

That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing. I'm not here to argue semantics.

> That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing

It’s really not. Our modern conception of freedom of speech derives from English Parliamentary privileges. (See Coke and Erasmus.)

Those, in turn, derived from Athenian democratic principles, where “just talking” was the system of government. In the most technical of senses, you are incorrect on what freedom of speech and the right to free speech mean. (Which are, again, distinct from both one another and legal protections of free speech, including the First Amendment.)

Can you elaborate? What does that have to do with the situation at hand?

But the government can tell a business to do it, like twitter used to do in 2020.

The government can ask.

Twitter frequently turned them down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com