3 ms·
The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one. Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the gove
by vorpalhex 3y ago
The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one.
Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the government feels is CSAM. The material has to actually be exploitative of children and for obscene purposes, it can't be a medical photo or a Nirvana album cover.
Do you really not see a difference between a probibition on any speech not preapproved by the Whitehouse versus charging people for CSAM posession?
This wasn't the Whitehouse post-hoc suing someone for hawking false covid cures. This was the Whitehouse saying unapproved messages could not be even discussed by private citizens on platforms.
- cowpig 3y ago> The ability to go in front of a judge We're commenting on the judgment. Made by judges. I'm going to stop responding here, this strategy of basing arguments in imagined alternative worlds of facts is not interesting.
- vorpalhex 3y agoThis only went in front of a judge because the Whitehouse was sued by Missouri and Louisiana. The Whitehouse is a defendant, not a plaintiff. None of the people censored have standing or were able to go in front of the judge.
- 15457345234 3y ago[dead]