3 ms·

Perhaps someone of a legal bent can explain what this means.

by coldcode 6y ago

drenvuk 6y ago
it's only 10 pages, single column. you want someone else to filter what the judge is saying for you?
- brian_herman__ 6y ago
  Some people aren't as well versed in the law. Give the guy a break. Chill.
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    I am chill, it's just that it's not much reading and sounds like the guy didn't even make an attempt to skim through it and pick up a few things. It's lazy.
vlovich123 6y ago
Not a lawyer, but lawfareblog coverage should be accessible no? (I'm reading it right now). https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-section-230-for-now https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-se...
- engineer_22 6y ago
  Written by a college freshman. Who says millennials are useless?
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    FWIW, author is Gen Z, not a Millennial. The latest end birth I've seen for Millennials is 2000 (normally ~1996); as a rising freshman, author was most likely born in 2001-2003. OT: Gen Z are about to show us what it really looks like when people spend their entire lives online. Be ready.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I, for one, would never say that. Unfortunately for millennials, they can't take credit for the work of Gen Z.
wahern 6y ago
It means nothing. Thomas has a penchant for gratuitously giving his personal opinion when nobody is asking for it. If I had a nickel for every time Thomas wrote to suggest the court should pick up an ancillary issue in the future, and then proceeded to write his future opinion.... Sometimes I wish the court would pick up an issue. Many years ago Thomas wrote in a cert denial regarding developer exactions (i.e. making a developer pay for something as a price for project approval) that the court should find a [better] case to make clear the boundaries of unconstitutional exactions. But of course the court has yet to do that, and even if it did I have little reason to believe (unfortunately) the rest of the justices shared Thomas' disdain for exactions. The same is likely true here: I doubt most of the other justices have a pressing desire to step into the middle of the Section 230 debate, and even if they did I doubt even more that they would share Thomas' peculiar interpretation of the law. Note that just because Thomas (or any justice) says that their interpretation is the obvious "plain text" meaning, that doesn't actually mean it is.

Perhaps someone of a legal bent can explain what this means.

drenvuk 6y ago

it's only 10 pages, single column. you want someone else to filter what the judge is saying for you?

brian_herman__ 6y ago
Some people aren't as well versed in the law. Give the guy a break. Chill.
- drenvuk 6y ago
  I am chill, it's just that it's not much reading and sounds like the guy didn't even make an attempt to skim through it and pick up a few things. It's lazy.

vlovich123 6y ago

Not a lawyer, but lawfareblog coverage should be accessible no? (I'm reading it right now). https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-section-230-for-now https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-se...

engineer_22 6y ago
Written by a college freshman. Who says millennials are useless?
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  FWIW, author is Gen Z, not a Millennial. The latest end birth I've seen for Millennials is 2000 (normally ~1996); as a rising freshman, author was most likely born in 2001-2003. OT: Gen Z are about to show us what it really looks like when people spend their entire lives online. Be ready.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  I, for one, would never say that. Unfortunately for millennials, they can't take credit for the work of Gen Z.

wahern 6y ago

It means nothing. Thomas has a penchant for gratuitously giving his personal opinion when nobody is asking for it. If I had a nickel for every time Thomas wrote to suggest the court should pick up an ancillary issue in the future, and then proceeded to write his future opinion.... Sometimes I wish the court would pick up an issue. Many years ago Thomas wrote in a cert denial regarding developer exactions (i.e. making a developer pay for something as a price for project approval) that the court should find a [better] case to make clear the boundaries of unconstitutional exactions. But of course the court has yet to do that, and even if it did I have little reason to believe (unfortunately) the rest of the justices shared Thomas' disdain for exactions. The same is likely true here: I doubt most of the other justices have a pressing desire to step into the middle of the Section 230 debate, and even if they did I doubt even more that they would share Thomas' peculiar interpretation of the law. Note that just because Thomas (or any justice) says that their interpretation is the obvious "plain text" meaning, that doesn't actually mean it is.