It's not difficult to show a compelling state interest in the regulation of weapons and intoxicants, but regulating media companies is a whole different questio

It's not difficult to show a compelling state interest in the regulation of weapons and intoxicants, but regulating media companies is a whole different question that deserves at least intermediate scrutiny. In this case specifically, I think the government would have difficulty demonstrating state interest given the carve-outs in the bill: it's hard to understand how Facebook is uniquely toxic but Youtube, LinkedIn, all multiplayer video games, and platforms with less than $100mm in annual gross revenue are exempt (plus a kind of tossed-out exemption for news that looks like a half-assed attempt to get around the controlling "ink-tax" 1A case law).