Comment by ericmay

Comment by ericmay 11 hours ago

No we don't - and we stop free associations all the time. I can't call up my non-existent buddies in Russia and say hey you guys need weapons? Well I'll sell them to you. We ban NVIDIA from selling advanced chips to China or North Korea. We prohibit US citizens from bribing officials in countries like Mexico for permits.

> Moreover it seems like security theater.

Meh. At a minimum it's just an economic reciprocation. If China doesn't allow our wildly successful social media companies to operate in China, we can as a matter of trade decide to stop their wildly successful social media company from operating in our country.

ch4s3 8 hours ago

You can call them up and just chat or go have tea with them. The crime there is evading a weapons sanction. Controlling weapons sales isn’t an infringement on 1a association rights.

That’s a stupid trade policy.

Reply View 4 replies

ericmay 8 hours ago

What are First Amendment Association rights?

Reply View | 3 replies
- cherry_tree 7 hours ago
  
  This is low effort, you couldn’t google that exact phrase rather than putting it in as a comment?
  https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-...
  > Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958):
  >"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for advancements of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech."
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  ericmay 6 hours ago
  
  Please don't accuse people of engaging in "low effort" comments. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. You can see that I've actually written quite a few very good and well-thought responses to discussion points raised by others. It's anything but low effort.
  In a discussion where the First Amendment related to speech is at the center of the discussion, it's important for people to define what they mean by First Amendment Association versus Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment, especially when the discussion is primarily framed as an issue relating to Freedom of Speech. If someone is asking for clarification of what someone else means, that adds to the discussion, it doesn't detract from it. We can't discuss things if people are unwilling to explain what they mean, particularly within context.
  To that end, I'd encourage you to read the section on Limits on the Freedom of Association in the article you provided to see why that line of reasoning doesn't apply here.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  cherry_tree 3 hours ago
  
  You are defending
  > What are First Amendment Association rights?
  As a substantive comment that adds meaningfully to the conversation? You think people believe you were asking the parent for clarification on their personal definition or usage of a word by broadly asking “what is x?”
  Or are you suggesting due to you having other substantive comments elsewhere you are due the right to make unsubstantial comments that do not increase the level of the discussion?
  I think you are being overly argumentative throughout the thread, the example I singled out being exceptionally bad.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies