3 ms·

This was one of the most blatantly anti first amendment expansion of government power I had seen in a long time. Glad it was rejected by the courts and hope tha

This was one of the most blatantly anti first amendment expansion of government power I had seen in a long time. Glad it was rejected by the courts and hope that the new law which is somehow even worse requiring the reporting of student and professors political leanings is blocked very soon as well. MccArthyism should remain dead in the past.

barbacoa 5y ago
The law wasn't rejected, the judge issued an injunction until the lawsuit is settled. Nor does the judge indicate he thinks this is blatantly a violation of the first amendment. "That brings us to issues about First Amendment treatment of social-media providers that are not so clearly settled. The plaintiffs say, in effect, that they should be treated like any other speaker. The State says, in contrast, that social-media providers are more like common carriers, transporting information from one person to another much as a train transports people or products from one city to another. The truth is in the middle." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253.113.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.37...
- jcranmer 5y ago
  That is disingenuous. The standard for a preliminary injunction is "likelihood of success on the merits." The judge has to find that the law probably violates the First Amendment to issue the injunction. The second-to-last sentence says: "The legislation does not survive strict scrutiny."--in other words, he found that the law violated the First Amendment. Indeed, the judge clearly believes that this is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. His commentary that you are citing is merely an indication that's it not as hilariously flagrantly violating it as the plaintiffs contended.
cmxch 5y ago
Given the general lack of conservative academics, the reporting should stay. The status quo currently protects academic freedom in one way but fails to protect for any other.

barbacoa 5y ago

The law wasn't rejected, the judge issued an injunction until the lawsuit is settled. Nor does the judge indicate he thinks this is blatantly a violation of the first amendment. "That brings us to issues about First Amendment treatment of social-media providers that are not so clearly settled. The plaintiffs say, in effect, that they should be treated like any other speaker. The State says, in contrast, that social-media providers are more like common carriers, transporting information from one person to another much as a train transports people or products from one city to another. The truth is in the middle." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253.113.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.37...

jcranmer 5y ago
That is disingenuous. The standard for a preliminary injunction is "likelihood of success on the merits." The judge has to find that the law probably violates the First Amendment to issue the injunction. The second-to-last sentence says: "The legislation does not survive strict scrutiny."--in other words, he found that the law violated the First Amendment. Indeed, the judge clearly believes that this is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. His commentary that you are citing is merely an indication that's it not as hilariously flagrantly violating it as the plaintiffs contended.

cmxch 5y ago

Given the general lack of conservative academics, the reporting should stay. The status quo currently protects academic freedom in one way but fails to protect for any other.