11 ms·

This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question w

This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.

galaxyLogic 4y ago
> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. They don't knock on your door and say you better stop expressing these views or we will harm you. They don't even harass people online. They just simply choose which speech they will pass on and which not. If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech". Of course not. Rather it is the case that you don't have the right to demand that I pass on your emails to all my contacts. This is bad jurisprudence. I wonder, was this judge perhaps nominated by D. Trump?
- jeff-davis 4y ago
  "choose which speech they will AMPLIFY" That makes private messages an interesting question, though. Or even cases where many people explicitly subscribe to a single voice -- is the platform really amplifying anything? Blocking such messages (to specific recipients who specifically opt to receive them) seems materially different than declining to promote/amplify such messages. I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint; it may or may not matter legally.
- wernercd 4y ago
  "that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever". They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too". "If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"." No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.
  - Hallucinaut 4y ago
    "They" also ban anyone not supporting Trump from posting to their site ...or from forever blocking nonsense unscientific articles from a newsfeed ...or from wearing a shirt that's pro-Democrat at a convention ...or from bringing scientific consensus into Fox talking heads shows ...or from posting on their subreddit unless certified by a peer as being sufficiently conservative That your post focuses singularly on denial of Republican establishment talking points shows the real intent implied by those pushing such laws, without any consideration that the "cancel culture" has been a deep tradition pervasive in media and American life on both sides of the aisle.
  - mpalmer 4y ago
    Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why? Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      > Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be. Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that: (1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish (2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
      - mpalmer 4y ago
        I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?
        4y ago
- concinds 4y ago
  > Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY I'll readily admit that algorithms can amplify content; but more than enough people have been tweeting for years and barely have any likes on their tweets (see @CNN, though I'm being cheeky). People say that algorithms reward bad content, because they amplify controversy; but really they just give people what they want. A "controversial" tweet with no likes won't get amplified. The crux is that if you agree that due to their use of algorithms, these platforms "amplify" all the content they host, then surely that means they endorse whatever they don't ban, to some extent? I'm not making a legal argument, just an intuitive one. That reasoning doesn't scale to an understaffed, undermoderated social media platform that can't even ban the omnipresent "double your crypto" scam accounts.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean you wont). It is considered the commons and open to the public. Inside a store is not the same thing, some jurisdictions have various rules. Now back to this discussion. I agree a company wouldn’t be obligated to amplify, ie promote via an algorithm. That said, they shouldn’t remove someone’s ability to share political speech. On social media platforms they have been banning people for just that. Social media is the commons, as such anyone should be able to preach to the masses. Though, perhaps it’ll be limited to only those who follow them. That said, I think the Texas law is kinda stupid. Because the tech companies have claimed they ban for other reasons such as: misinformation — challenging elections, questioning vaccines, questioning masks, etc all get banned. None of them are directly political in nature. However, only one political party rejects that stuff… that said, arguably I could go to a mall and preach any of those. The same protections should apply.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    "Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
      - likeclockwork 4y ago
        No one's entitled to an audience.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.
  - brightball 4y ago
    Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will the ideologues realize that their constructs can't cope with the modern world?
      - brightball 4y ago
        What is a stochastic terrorist?
        hackerlight 4y ago
        A perpetrator of stochastic terrorism. In this context, a lone wolf who is radicalized online.
        detaro 4y ago
        "Stochastic terrorism" is the concept that a media campaign with large enough reach that vilifies and dehumanizes a target group will cause a rise in attacks against them, without any central planning who is attacking whom when, but rather because it pushes random (hence "stochastic") at-risk people to commit random attacks.
eduction 4y ago
> Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising. Not true. The first of the two judges who concurred on this opinion, Andrew Oldham, was unanimously rated “well qualified” by ABA’s federal judiciary standing committee on Feb 15 2018 according to their website see page 5: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/web-rating-chart-trump-115.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/g... Also concurring, Leslie Southwick was also unanimously voted “well qualified” by that same ABA committee on Jan 9 2007 see top of page 1 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/federal_judicary/ratings110.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/f... Edith Jones was appointed by Reagan in 85 so I can’t readily find her rating, but she almost entirely dissented from this ruling, so if she’s unqualified it runs against your point. (Judges names via original opinion https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd...) Can I ask what the basis for your statement is? Here is a sloppy copy paste of the list of judges voted unqualified by ABA since 1989 to further confirm the above (none of the concurring judges are on it and both were appointed since then) ————————— Via https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_adminis... Nominee Court President Rating Outcome Alexander Williams Jr. District of Maryland Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 6, 1993 Bruce Greer Southern District of Florida Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn David Hamilton Southern District of Indiana Clinton Majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994 David Katz Northern District of Ohio Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994 Daniel Patrick Ryan Eastern District of Michigan G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn David Bunning Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on February 14, 2002 Dora Irizarry Eastern District of New York G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on June 24, 2004 Frederick Rohlfing District of Hawaii G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings Gregory Van Tatenhove Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on December 21, 2005 Michael Brunson Wallace Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings Roger Benitez Southern District of California G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on June 17, 2004 Vanessa Bryant District of Connecticut G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified* Confirmed on March 28, 2007 Brett Talley Middle District of Alabama Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn Charles B. Goodwin Western District of Oklahoma Trump Majority not qualified Confirmed on August 28, 2018 Holly Lou Teeter District of Kansas Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 1, 2018 John O'Connor Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn Jonathan Kobes Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2018 Justin Walker Western District of Kentucky Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 24, 2019 L. Steven Grasz Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Unanimously not qualified Confirmed on December 12, 2017 Lawrence VanDyke Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2019 *This rating represents Bryant's nomination to the 109th Congress; Bryant's rating changed when her nomination was submitted to the 110th Congress. A substantial majority rated her as qualified at that time. Source: American Bar Association Ballotpedia f in Twitter logo
kyrra 4y ago
The ABA at this point is a partisan institution. Go read into some of their politics and realize that they are very much left-leaning. Edit: example https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-schools-aba-identity-politics-affirmative-action-11626364370 https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?
  - abathur 4y ago
    The "do your own research" meme works better when the initiator can make the target go refer to a corpus of questionable content (that is often already ideologically skewed), actively filter out whatever they find benign, and zero in on whatever lights up their confirmation bias.
    - mpalmer 4y ago
      It seems like you're trying to turn someone's objection to a weak argument into a weak argument itself by referring to it as an example of a "meme". I'm not sure I need to say anything else to be honest.
      - abathur 4y ago
        Sitting mighty high in the saddle for someone who didn't bother addressing anything I actually said. Edit: also unclear whether you realize I'm agreeing with the comment I responded to or not. /shrug
  - kyrra 4y ago
    Added a context link. Here it is for you https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-schools-aba-identity-politics-affirmative-action-11626364370 https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
rufus_foreman 4y ago
eduction's comment asserts the exact opposite of what you are saying. Who is lying here?
- eduction 4y ago
  I think it’s likely OP made an honest mistake of some sort (as opposed to an intentional deception) but I do wish he’d correct it. It was a pretty broad and dismissive statement and personally maligning the judges involved in decisions we don’t like distracts from what should be the focus of the discussion, the actual legal principles and other ideas in play here. Sometimes I worry that we may be losing the ability or willingness in this country to separate the ideas we don’t like from the people who embrace them. I think making that distinction is critical for building a rational, humane, and effective society.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    >> I think making that distinction is critical for building a rational, humane, and effective society. Good luck with that I guess. I'm going to go blow up the Do Lung bridge.
xwowsersx 4y ago
"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-century-of-1st-amendment-law-to-argue-internet-companies-have-no-right-to-moderate/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment law. This "judge" is an unqualified political hack.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    > It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. The author, Mike Masnick, is a tech blogger — not an attorney, as far as I've been able to determine. Even Eugene Volokh — who is both an actual attorney and uniquely qualified to weigh in here — didn't attempt to digest the 113 pages of the opinion, much less immediately produce a reasoned analysis. I'm sure one will be forthcoming. The quote you cited from Masnick certainly isn't legal analysis. It's empty invective, as are statements like "This "judge" is an unqualified political hack".
    - mhneu 4y ago
      Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion. A few other sources: - Lawrence Tribe, a very senior center-left constitutional lawyer and Harvard prof: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050 https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050 "A disgraceful Fifth Circuit decision" - Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press (a deeply centrist/neutral organization) https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377 https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377 "Just finished reading the 5th Circuit’s decision in the NetChoice v. Paxton case and it’s . . . not good. To say the First Amendment analysis is deeply flawed would be an understatement." - Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney who's also been a Federalist Society backer: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929 https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929 "I am old-fashioned, but I would think that inferior courts start with what the Supreme Court has said the text means." (I did a quick search and found three sources that span the ideological spectrum, which show how widespread the negativity about this decision has been.) This is a terribly-reasoned decision that doesn't make much legal sense. It's an ideological decision, motivated by the feeling that rightwing voices, which are actually boosted by the rich people that own social media, are instead, against all sense, suppressed.
rayiner 4y ago
The opinion was written by Oldham, who was unanimously rated “well qualified” by the ABA: https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Oldham https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Oldham Now I don’t think the ABA ratings are worth anything, but your assertion is factually untrue.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

galaxyLogic 4y ago

> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. They don't knock on your door and say you better stop expressing these views or we will harm you. They don't even harass people online. They just simply choose which speech they will pass on and which not. If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech". Of course not. Rather it is the case that you don't have the right to demand that I pass on your emails to all my contacts. This is bad jurisprudence. I wonder, was this judge perhaps nominated by D. Trump?

jeff-davis 4y ago
"choose which speech they will AMPLIFY" That makes private messages an interesting question, though. Or even cases where many people explicitly subscribe to a single voice -- is the platform really amplifying anything? Blocking such messages (to specific recipients who specifically opt to receive them) seems materially different than declining to promote/amplify such messages. I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint; it may or may not matter legally.
wernercd 4y ago
"that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever". They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too". "If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"." No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.
- Hallucinaut 4y ago
  "They" also ban anyone not supporting Trump from posting to their site ...or from forever blocking nonsense unscientific articles from a newsfeed ...or from wearing a shirt that's pro-Democrat at a convention ...or from bringing scientific consensus into Fox talking heads shows ...or from posting on their subreddit unless certified by a peer as being sufficiently conservative That your post focuses singularly on denial of Republican establishment talking points shows the real intent implied by those pushing such laws, without any consideration that the "cancel culture" has been a deep tradition pervasive in media and American life on both sides of the aisle.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why? Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    > Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be. Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that: (1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish (2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
    - mpalmer 4y ago
      I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?
      - 4y ago
concinds 4y ago
> Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY I'll readily admit that algorithms can amplify content; but more than enough people have been tweeting for years and barely have any likes on their tweets (see @CNN, though I'm being cheeky). People say that algorithms reward bad content, because they amplify controversy; but really they just give people what they want. A "controversial" tweet with no likes won't get amplified. The crux is that if you agree that due to their use of algorithms, these platforms "amplify" all the content they host, then surely that means they endorse whatever they don't ban, to some extent? I'm not making a legal argument, just an intuitive one. That reasoning doesn't scale to an understaffed, undermoderated social media platform that can't even ban the omnipresent "double your crypto" scam accounts.
lettergram 4y ago
> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean you wont). It is considered the commons and open to the public. Inside a store is not the same thing, some jurisdictions have various rules. Now back to this discussion. I agree a company wouldn’t be obligated to amplify, ie promote via an algorithm. That said, they shouldn’t remove someone’s ability to share political speech. On social media platforms they have been banning people for just that. Social media is the commons, as such anyone should be able to preach to the masses. Though, perhaps it’ll be limited to only those who follow them. That said, I think the Texas law is kinda stupid. Because the tech companies have claimed they ban for other reasons such as: misinformation — challenging elections, questioning vaccines, questioning masks, etc all get banned. None of them are directly political in nature. However, only one political party rejects that stuff… that said, arguably I could go to a mall and preach any of those. The same protections should apply.
- etchalon 4y ago
  "Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
    - likeclockwork 4y ago
      No one's entitled to an audience.
hackerlight 4y ago
One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.
- brightball 4y ago
  Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will the ideologues realize that their constructs can't cope with the modern world?
    - brightball 4y ago
      What is a stochastic terrorist?
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        A perpetrator of stochastic terrorism. In this context, a lone wolf who is radicalized online.
      - detaro 4y ago
        "Stochastic terrorism" is the concept that a media campaign with large enough reach that vilifies and dehumanizes a target group will cause a rise in attacks against them, without any central planning who is attacking whom when, but rather because it pushes random (hence "stochastic") at-risk people to commit random attacks.

eduction 4y ago

> Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising. Not true. The first of the two judges who concurred on this opinion, Andrew Oldham, was unanimously rated “well qualified” by ABA’s federal judiciary standing committee on Feb 15 2018 according to their website see page 5: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/web-rating-chart-trump-115.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/g... Also concurring, Leslie Southwick was also unanimously voted “well qualified” by that same ABA committee on Jan 9 2007 see top of page 1 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/federal_judicary/ratings110.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/f... Edith Jones was appointed by Reagan in 85 so I can’t readily find her rating, but she almost entirely dissented from this ruling, so if she’s unqualified it runs against your point. (Judges names via original opinion https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd...) Can I ask what the basis for your statement is? Here is a sloppy copy paste of the list of judges voted unqualified by ABA since 1989 to further confirm the above (none of the concurring judges are on it and both were appointed since then) ————————— Via https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_adminis... Nominee Court President Rating Outcome Alexander Williams Jr. District of Maryland Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 6, 1993 Bruce Greer Southern District of Florida Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn David Hamilton Southern District of Indiana Clinton Majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994 David Katz Northern District of Ohio Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994 Daniel Patrick Ryan Eastern District of Michigan G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn David Bunning Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on February 14, 2002 Dora Irizarry Eastern District of New York G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on June 24, 2004 Frederick Rohlfing District of Hawaii G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings Gregory Van Tatenhove Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on December 21, 2005 Michael Brunson Wallace Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings Roger Benitez Southern District of California G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on June 17, 2004 Vanessa Bryant District of Connecticut G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified* Confirmed on March 28, 2007 Brett Talley Middle District of Alabama Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn Charles B. Goodwin Western District of Oklahoma Trump Majority not qualified Confirmed on August 28, 2018 Holly Lou Teeter District of Kansas Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 1, 2018 John O'Connor Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn Jonathan Kobes Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2018 Justin Walker Western District of Kentucky Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 24, 2019 L. Steven Grasz Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Unanimously not qualified Confirmed on December 12, 2017 Lawrence VanDyke Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2019 *This rating represents Bryant's nomination to the 109th Congress; Bryant's rating changed when her nomination was submitted to the 110th Congress. A substantial majority rated her as qualified at that time. Source: American Bar Association Ballotpedia f in Twitter logo

kyrra 4y ago

The ABA at this point is a partisan institution. Go read into some of their politics and realize that they are very much left-leaning. Edit: example https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-schools-aba-identity-politics-affirmative-action-11626364370 https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...

enraged_camel 4y ago
Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?
- abathur 4y ago
  The "do your own research" meme works better when the initiator can make the target go refer to a corpus of questionable content (that is often already ideologically skewed), actively filter out whatever they find benign, and zero in on whatever lights up their confirmation bias.
  - mpalmer 4y ago
    It seems like you're trying to turn someone's objection to a weak argument into a weak argument itself by referring to it as an example of a "meme". I'm not sure I need to say anything else to be honest.
    - abathur 4y ago
      Sitting mighty high in the saddle for someone who didn't bother addressing anything I actually said. Edit: also unclear whether you realize I'm agreeing with the comment I responded to or not. /shrug
- kyrra 4y ago
  Added a context link. Here it is for you https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-schools-aba-identity-politics-affirmative-action-11626364370 https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...

rufus_foreman 4y ago

eduction's comment asserts the exact opposite of what you are saying. Who is lying here?

eduction 4y ago
I think it’s likely OP made an honest mistake of some sort (as opposed to an intentional deception) but I do wish he’d correct it. It was a pretty broad and dismissive statement and personally maligning the judges involved in decisions we don’t like distracts from what should be the focus of the discussion, the actual legal principles and other ideas in play here. Sometimes I worry that we may be losing the ability or willingness in this country to separate the ideas we don’t like from the people who embrace them. I think making that distinction is critical for building a rational, humane, and effective society.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  >> I think making that distinction is critical for building a rational, humane, and effective society. Good luck with that I guess. I'm going to go blow up the Do Lung bridge.

xwowsersx 4y ago

"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-century-of-1st-amendment-law-to-argue-internet-companies-have-no-right-to-moderate/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment law. This "judge" is an unqualified political hack.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  > It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. The author, Mike Masnick, is a tech blogger — not an attorney, as far as I've been able to determine. Even Eugene Volokh — who is both an actual attorney and uniquely qualified to weigh in here — didn't attempt to digest the 113 pages of the opinion, much less immediately produce a reasoned analysis. I'm sure one will be forthcoming. The quote you cited from Masnick certainly isn't legal analysis. It's empty invective, as are statements like "This "judge" is an unqualified political hack".
  - mhneu 4y ago
    Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion. A few other sources: - Lawrence Tribe, a very senior center-left constitutional lawyer and Harvard prof: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050 https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050 "A disgraceful Fifth Circuit decision" - Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press (a deeply centrist/neutral organization) https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377 https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377 "Just finished reading the 5th Circuit’s decision in the NetChoice v. Paxton case and it’s . . . not good. To say the First Amendment analysis is deeply flawed would be an understatement." - Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney who's also been a Federalist Society backer: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929 https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929 "I am old-fashioned, but I would think that inferior courts start with what the Supreme Court has said the text means." (I did a quick search and found three sources that span the ideological spectrum, which show how widespread the negativity about this decision has been.) This is a terribly-reasoned decision that doesn't make much legal sense. It's an ideological decision, motivated by the feeling that rightwing voices, which are actually boosted by the rich people that own social media, are instead, against all sense, suppressed.

rayiner 4y ago

The opinion was written by Oldham, who was unanimously rated “well qualified” by the ABA: https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Oldham https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Oldham Now I don’t think the ABA ratings are worth anything, but your assertion is factually untrue.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]