3 ms·

Technically true, but if the SC had wanted an opportunity to revisit Section 230, they could have used this as an opportunity to do so. By declining on procedu

Technically true, but if the SC had wanted an opportunity to revisit Section 230, they could have used this as an opportunity to do so. By declining on procedural grounds, it signals they are not especially interested in evaluating Section 230 in a broader scope.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> By declining on procedural grounds This wasn’t decided on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds. The fact that it was decided on a different substantive question than some people wanted it to be doesn’t make it procedural.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The procedural issue is which substantive question to tackle first. If they address the merits of the underlying liability and conclude that there was none, then they get to skip the question of Section 230 because it's irrelevant. Now suppose they want to avoid tackling the question of the underlying liability. Well, if the defendants would be immune under Section 230 anyway then that question would be irrelevant and they could avoid answering it. But that's not what they did.
shadowgovt 3y ago
Possibly, but I don't think I'd read the tea leaves that way. As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time, of following the evolved purpose of their Court to rule as narrowly as possible to resolve the open question of law. This case specifically was ill-designed to probe 230 because the underlying claim of culpability was cobweb-thin. And the Court is guided by the arguments made in front of them; while plaintiffs certainly wanted this to hinge on 230, the defense made a very reasonable case based on "In what parallel universe are networks considered to have culpability because they made money indirectly by being the middlemen for someone else's recruitment video?" Might as well sue Goodyear for making the tires that went on the van used in the attack. There are other cases in the pipeline that will test 230 more directly than this one. This one doesn't even get to the point where questions of S230 law are under scrutiny because the civil tort law used didn't apply.
- xp84 3y ago
  > As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time, I pretty much agree with you, even though I think several of the justices are partisan hacks/stooges. The fortunate thing is that, they're mostly one or two-issue hacks, who seem to believe in their hearts that they are and should be competent professionals in all other matters, and who are keenly aware that they shouldn't just blow things up.* This is bad for those affected by those certain issues (we all know which ones), but thankfully this branch of government isn't populated entirely with careless, clueless people like the ones who are slowly taking over the other branches. * This makes me wonder if it's almost 100% due to the lack of the need to pander to the extremists who got them in. I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder. That was among the concerns that led the framers of the Constitution to make the SCOTUS a lifetime appointment. It's designed to be a brass ring that, once you grab it, nothing should be influencing your rulings but your own heart and mind. The constraint upon that power is that the Court's initial position is the weakest relative to the other branches: any ruling they make that doesn't rest directly on the Constitution can be undone with a change of the law, and nobody shows up in the criminal side of their Court unless the executive decides to try to enforce a law.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> By declining on procedural grounds This wasn’t decided on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds. The fact that it was decided on a different substantive question than some people wanted it to be doesn’t make it procedural.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The procedural issue is which substantive question to tackle first. If they address the merits of the underlying liability and conclude that there was none, then they get to skip the question of Section 230 because it's irrelevant. Now suppose they want to avoid tackling the question of the underlying liability. Well, if the defendants would be immune under Section 230 anyway then that question would be irrelevant and they could avoid answering it. But that's not what they did.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Possibly, but I don't think I'd read the tea leaves that way. As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time, of following the evolved purpose of their Court to rule as narrowly as possible to resolve the open question of law. This case specifically was ill-designed to probe 230 because the underlying claim of culpability was cobweb-thin. And the Court is guided by the arguments made in front of them; while plaintiffs certainly wanted this to hinge on 230, the defense made a very reasonable case based on "In what parallel universe are networks considered to have culpability because they made money indirectly by being the middlemen for someone else's recruitment video?" Might as well sue Goodyear for making the tires that went on the van used in the attack. There are other cases in the pipeline that will test 230 more directly than this one. This one doesn't even get to the point where questions of S230 law are under scrutiny because the civil tort law used didn't apply.

xp84 3y ago
> As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time, I pretty much agree with you, even though I think several of the justices are partisan hacks/stooges. The fortunate thing is that, they're mostly one or two-issue hacks, who seem to believe in their hearts that they are and should be competent professionals in all other matters, and who are keenly aware that they shouldn't just blow things up.* This is bad for those affected by those certain issues (we all know which ones), but thankfully this branch of government isn't populated entirely with careless, clueless people like the ones who are slowly taking over the other branches. * This makes me wonder if it's almost 100% due to the lack of the need to pander to the extremists who got them in. I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder. That was among the concerns that led the framers of the Constitution to make the SCOTUS a lifetime appointment. It's designed to be a brass ring that, once you grab it, nothing should be influencing your rulings but your own heart and mind. The constraint upon that power is that the Court's initial position is the weakest relative to the other branches: any ruling they make that doesn't rest directly on the Constitution can be undone with a change of the law, and nobody shows up in the criminal side of their Court unless the executive decides to try to enforce a law.