Reddit is private property. As such, any submissions or comments can legally be removed without violating the 1st Amendment.

This is true.

I would agree, but what if the person/agent doing the removing is hired by the govt?

Why would that make any difference?

Because the govt is the actor, the one directly suppressing the information. It's a direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

I disagree:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So as long as it's not "a law", it's okay for the govt to hire Blackwater Academi to run around smashing keyboards and slapping duct tape on people's mouths. Or, in this case, direct the US military and three-letter agencies to do the same, virtually.

I didn't say it was okay. I was just pointing out it wasn't unconstitutional for them to remove comments here.

hire Blackwater Academi to run around smashing keyboards and slapping duct tape on people's mouths.

That's quite a jump you made there. Now you're talking about breaking & entering, destruction of private property and assault. Not relevant to this discussion.

I feel you're being deliberately obtuse. The question at hand: Is it constitutional for the govt to hire somebody to limit your free speech, so long as no actual law was passed to that effect?

The question at hand...

No. The question at hand is

Since we're on conspiracy theories... does Reddit itself whole heartedly believe absolutely in the 1st amendment?

Your question is off-topic.

Nevertheless, I'll answer it as well as I can. If Reddit allows government employees to become mods and delete comments, then IMHO that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Oh wait... I see you've actually changed your question since your first comment.

Is it constitutional for the govt to hire somebody to limit your free speech, so long as no actual law was passed to that effect?

I suggest you ask your attorney. I'm sorry but I can't answer that question. It's too vague for me. You've gone away from simply the 1st Amendment and included the whole Constitution and the resulting entire US Code. You've also gone away from just Reddit and apparently are including everywhere in the country.

I suggest you ask your attorney. I'm sorry but I can't answer that question. It's too vague for me. You've gone away from simply the 1st Amendment and included the whole Constitution and the resulting entire US Code. You've also gone away from just Reddit and apparently are including everywhere in the country.

What kind of a crazy cop out answer is this? Not Man enough to answer? Only sovereign enough to pay an internet bill?

To answer the question, YES, it IS constitutional.

Do you not know what THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS?

CONGRESS. Let's stop right there.

Supreme Court is not congress, therefore Supreme Court can make rulings which can abridge your freedom of speech, like they do with the no constitution zone which is 100 miles within the border of the United States of America, and look at the map.

There you go /u/letshackreality , which is a stupid name by the way, because you can't hack reality, and no this isn't a derailment, because I answered the question, now I'm saying something new because that stuff's over.

You can't hack reality and you can't reverse entropy.

The answers are there if you choose to accept them.

What kind of a crazy cop out answer is this? Not Man enough to answer?

If I don't know the answer to a question, then I admit it.

If I don't know the answer to a question, then I admit it.

This sounds like yet another cop out excuse, because in this instance, the answer is clearly obvious, and should be very well known by a person claiming to be a sovereign man.

Why wouldn't you just do what I did and Google search it since you're already on the internet?

When finding the answer is that simple, your answer is a cop out excuse to not have to put out a definitive answer.

Grow some balls and stop pussy footing around with people with bullshit "answers" like that.

Sure, answers might be found for for every conceivable combination of possibilities in such a vague question but I have little doubt the answers would all be different.

If I had said "yes", then sure as shootin' somebody would post a case that proved the opposite. If I had said "no" then the same thing would have happened. I try not to get suckered into such situations.

Regarding the first amendment, many people seem to think that freedom of speech also means freedom from consequences of your actions. In fact, that seems to be the case for most examples of "disregarding the first amendment".Relvant XKCD.

Image

Title: Free Speech

Title-text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 570 times, representing 2.0158% of referenced xkcds.

^{xkcd.com | xkcd sub/kerfuffle | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete}

So, extract everyone from society that is deemed by popular vote to be undeserving of a voice?

When did I argue that? I merely said that you have the freedom to say what you want, but that doesn't mean you're free from consequences of what you said.

Would there be consequences for this? http://www.reddit.com/r/everybodyhatesam/

I don't see why there couldn't be.

Me neither.

That is true.

I have seen posts be removed that contain violations of the user agreement but stated already, this site is private property. Overall, though, it's not bad depending on the mods of course.

Don't get me wrong. I approve of Reddit.

I know. I just wanted to answer your question.

Thank you

There are conspiracies on conspiracies covered up by conspiracies. Reddit is a model for human conciousness.

In the same way we talk ourselves in and out of confident understanding so to does reddit.

What is important is how you define freedom. Are you free because the first amendment exists? Is not a laymans understanding of freedom hypocritical in and of itself?

I really wasn't so much referring to myself. Trying to exhibit the larger point. As far as Reddit being a model for human consciousness? Don't you think that's a bit of a leap? It's a forum for the communication of ideas, not a modality of inspirational thought.

I fail to see the difference.

Are our brains not forums by which infinite ideas can be manifest or be processed from external triggers?

Is consciousness not the ONLY modality of thought and therefor are not all venues by which conciousness are expressed modes of inspiration?

To me it seems that just as reddit has sub reddits and multiple ideas, some inspirational, some not, as well as the potential to be influenced by your ideas equally by those of another, so to do our brains.

If our brains are not the primary modality of consciousness, then what is?

Reddit is not, nor should it even be considered a 'model' for human consciousness. That is an outlandish claim. It is a forum for communication. Human consciousness is not a website.

Explain why a forum of communication is not human consciousness, you have not dissuaded me.

And explain how, metaphorically, a website (like reddit, but any one really) is not simply a facet of the collective conscious that is internet, the same way an idea/thought/individual consciousness is not a facet of THE collective consciousness. Is this not analogous? And what is a model if not the best fit analogy?

Ok, Stephen King writes a scary novel from concepts and thoughts of his own making. You read that novel and put pictures in your mind about characters and events as you read it. Do you believe your conscious imagination is a match to what Stephen King's was? No, because it was a communication of ideas, not a mind meld of consciousness that exactly mirrors one anothers minds. You put the words together in your own mind to build a mental picture of what those words meant to you. There is no consciousness mental orb anywhere on the Internet. So, the Internet itself, while sharing great and insightful information, should be considered more of a tabloid than a truthful reference. Not saying there isn't truth on the Internet, but it does appear to be more and more of a type of marketing tool for tabloid fodder. Of that, I am conscious.

But if I have an interest in the novel and I choose to share this interest in the form of discussion, isnt that sharing consciousness, and isn't that exactly what reddit does?

Allow for the natural evolution of conciousness itself to be shaped outside of the infidivudal perspective to a concensus perspective, and is not then perspective itself conciousness.

Perhaps we are differing on our understanding of consciousness itself. How would you define human consciousness then? From that definition perhaps I can rephrase my original sentiment to one that we can both support.

No it is not sharing consciousness, it is sharing concepts, contexts, ideas and experience. Consciousness belongs to you and only you. A consensus perspective is just that. An agreed to context and concept by a group. Using Hitler as a reference, there was concensus. However each individual living in that consensus may have had conscious reservations about the consensus. So inwardly they were in conscious disagreement with the consensus, but outwardly they were conformist to the consensus regardless of their own conscience.

No it is not sharing consciousness, it is sharing concepts, contexts, ideas and experience. Consciousness belongs to you and only you

Do you have a source for this? I have been looking for one my whole life and have yet to find an adequate source for such a statement.

Using Hitler as a reference, there was concensus. However each individual living in that consensus may have had conscious reservations about the consensus. So inwardly they were in conscious disagreement with the consensus, but outwardly they were conformist to the consensus regardless of their own conscience.

This example is inadequate for the terms of this discussion. Germans are not a seperate species and therefore do not have seperate conscious energy. Can you please rephrase this example in terms of a global/species perspective so that I may better understand your point?

Ok, you win.

I'm not trying to win, just to understand. If you have lost an interest in understanding then that is a loss for me, not a win.

But thank you for the conversation.

I'm sorry that you do not understand. You're welcome and thank you.

You have the right to speak freely, you also have a right to be beaten and placed in a rape cage for exercising that right.

Source: 5 cops beat me down for exercising this right and accused me of assault (felony).

I dont think threats (im assuming you verbally threatened them seeing you admittance to a felony assault, though i know you can get the same treatment by unlawfully brandishing a firearm and some other stuff too, for felony assault) are protected by the first amendment. This has always been a grey area of understanding for me, though. So ill admit, im no expert as far as this particular thing goes.

Do you feel my speculation is correct?

No, I was told not to say another word and I said "word" the guy went to grab me and I took off running, when I was tackled the officer wrote in the report that he hurt his pinky finger and charged me with assault of a police officer because he hurt his pinky in the tackling.

Wow, what a pussy (not you). But, if i may ask, why did you run?

The cop went to grab me and all I thought was I did not want to go to jail, nor did I need violence on myself. The arrest report is absolutely a joke complete fabrication.

I had stuck up for another guy who got physically slammed face first on the hood of the car. This was 1999, I did not know the guy it just seemed very excessive as the guy was not really struggling. I basically got involved by trying to rally public support hence the shut your mouth bit.

So what you're saying is that you have a 1st Amendment right, but be afraid to utilize it if it offends the powerful?

I was being sarcastic, there is no fear in me.

I assumed you may have been. No prob.

I assumed you may have been. No prob.