4 ms·

I think the Supreme Court has a real out here to say, "Fuck, we dunno" and rule to change nothing and suggest that Congress remedy the situation through new law

by migf 4y ago

I think the Supreme Court has a real out here to say, "Fuck, we dunno" and rule to change nothing and suggest that Congress remedy the situation through new laws. That's ideologically consistent and the right move. I would be astonished if they don't do that here.

kube-system 4y ago
A lot of news outlets are just posting the funny part of Kagan's quote and not the rest of the context... but it sounds like that's exactly what she was saying. > "We're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," Kagan said of her colleagues, eliciting a laugh from the courtroom gallery. "There's a lot of uncertainty going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area and just because of the fact that, once we go with you, all of a sudden we're finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress should want that system, but isn't that something for Congress to do, not the court?" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wrestles-immunity-social-media-companies/story?id=97364834 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wrestles-immun...
shagie 4y ago
https://wapo.st/3lWw2Rg https://wapo.st/3lWw2Rg > Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said one could question why Congress provided such immunity when passing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. But she drew laughter when she wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in cutting back such protection. > “We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” Kagan said. > Kavanaugh said Congress knows that lower courts have interpreted the protections broadly. “Isn’t it better ... to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments?” he asked Stewart. --- Justice Kagan's exchange for that segment is on page 45 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1333_p8k0.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... JUSTICE KAGAN: Yeah, so I don't think that a court did it over there, and I think that that's my concern, is I can imagine a world where you're right that none of this stuff gets protection. And, you know, every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the Internet. (Laughter.) JUSTICE KAGAN: And I don't have to -- I don't have to accept all Ms. Blatt's "the sky is falling" stuff to accept something about, boy, there is a lot of uncertainty about going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area and just because of the fact that, once we go with you, all of a sudden we're finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress should want that system, but isn't that something for Congress to do, not the Court?
freejazz 4y ago
That wouldn't resolve the question as to whether or not the laws conflict and to what extent they do...

by migf 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

A lot of news outlets are just posting the funny part of Kagan's quote and not the rest of the context... but it sounds like that's exactly what she was saying. > "We're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," Kagan said of her colleagues, eliciting a laugh from the courtroom gallery. "There's a lot of uncertainty going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area and just because of the fact that, once we go with you, all of a sudden we're finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress should want that system, but isn't that something for Congress to do, not the court?" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wrestles-immunity-social-media-companies/story?id=97364834 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wrestles-immun...

shagie 4y ago

https://wapo.st/3lWw2Rg https://wapo.st/3lWw2Rg > Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said one could question why Congress provided such immunity when passing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. But she drew laughter when she wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in cutting back such protection. > “We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” Kagan said. > Kavanaugh said Congress knows that lower courts have interpreted the protections broadly. “Isn’t it better ... to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments?” he asked Stewart. --- Justice Kagan's exchange for that segment is on page 45 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1333_p8k0.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... JUSTICE KAGAN: Yeah, so I don't think that a court did it over there, and I think that that's my concern, is I can imagine a world where you're right that none of this stuff gets protection. And, you know, every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the Internet. (Laughter.) JUSTICE KAGAN: And I don't have to -- I don't have to accept all Ms. Blatt's "the sky is falling" stuff to accept something about, boy, there is a lot of uncertainty about going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area and just because of the fact that, once we go with you, all of a sudden we're finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress should want that system, but isn't that something for Congress to do, not the Court?

freejazz 4y ago

That wouldn't resolve the question as to whether or not the laws conflict and to what extent they do...