Re the Colorado case. I thought "Stewart" was the only claim to standing that the plaintiffs had. So why doesn't the revelation that he isn't gay and hadn't wanted a wedding website eliminate the plaintiff's right to sue and therefore provide grounds for a rehearing? Adam Liptak didn't address this. JT
It seems to me there's a backlash coming, and right now. Dred Scott took years to feel it, but in this media environment, if the Democrats play their cards right (no guarantee of that!), I foresee a blue tsunami in 2024. Hammer on Dobbs all day every day, as a gateway to the larger issue of an antebellum rump SCROTUS.
Well, that answers a question I had--there has been no trial on whether or not the government "improperly" pressured social media. He has based an injunction on his own speculation. There wasn't a prima facie case, just competing testimony. The fact that conservative views based on misinformation were rejected by some social media says nothing about what the government did. The media are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves.
In any event, the thought that YouTube squelched misinformation (whether at the government behest or not) is ludicrous. Where does the judge think all those folks "do their own research?" They often CITE YouTube.
Re the Colorado case. I thought "Stewart" was the only claim to standing that the plaintiffs had. So why doesn't the revelation that he isn't gay and hadn't wanted a wedding website eliminate the plaintiff's right to sue and therefore provide grounds for a rehearing? Adam Liptak didn't address this. JT
Right, that's the error the coverage is making. Stewart wasn't the grounds for standing. The court found standing for other (bad) reasons.
David, this case was in the works since 2016. It had no
standing then, or now, no matter who was financing this woman. 7 years in the
pike to SCOTUS? How many
of the new conservative justices were in SCOTUS in
2016? 2018?
Hate speech is not “free” speech.
It seems to me there's a backlash coming, and right now. Dred Scott took years to feel it, but in this media environment, if the Democrats play their cards right (no guarantee of that!), I foresee a blue tsunami in 2024. Hammer on Dobbs all day every day, as a gateway to the larger issue of an antebellum rump SCROTUS.
Well, that answers a question I had--there has been no trial on whether or not the government "improperly" pressured social media. He has based an injunction on his own speculation. There wasn't a prima facie case, just competing testimony. The fact that conservative views based on misinformation were rejected by some social media says nothing about what the government did. The media are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves.
In any event, the thought that YouTube squelched misinformation (whether at the government behest or not) is ludicrous. Where does the judge think all those folks "do their own research?" They often CITE YouTube.