3 ms·
The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it
by version_five 4y ago
The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional"
The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- perihelions 4y agoEFF likely changed their own title; "unconstitutional" is present in the url string. (I'm not OP) edit to add: https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.o...
- version_five 4y agoGood catch, I didn't see that!
- Finnucane 4y agoNo, the lower court issued an injunction and the higher court lifted it. The case is still being argued.