3 ms·
Case history and law are very clear about how the first amendment can be violated by even subtle pressure from the government. I recommend reading judge Dought
by claytongulick 3y ago
Case history and law are very clear about how the first amendment can be violated by even subtle pressure from the government.
I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
- ceejayoz 3y agoI've read the injunction. It's not very good. It's since been stayed; https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/social-media-injunction-temporary-stay-00106431 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/social-media-injunc....
- claytongulick 3y agoYes, it's an administrative stay pending full review which is standard process in cases like this, the stay wasn't issued based on the merits.
- ceejayoz 3y agoNor was the injunction. No one's had their proper day in court on this yet.
- mjamil 3y agoI disagree. Case history is absolutely not clear about the difference between government encouraging action by companies vs. forcing said action, and whether the former is explicitly permissible. I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.
- claytongulick 3y agoHe based "the most massive" on the total number of people affected. Certainly not on the same scale of severity of the abuse of Japanese Americans, but much more massive based on the number of people affected.