5 ms·

How is the state of California related to the WH? I don't understand why anyone would downvote this. Can't people ask questions these days? Especially question

How is the state of California related to the WH? I don't understand why anyone would downvote this. Can't people ask questions these days? Especially questions that prompt significant discussions and clear the climate and misconceptions some of us have?

edgyquant 3y ago
They are both under the jurisdiction of the US federal court system. Something applying to the white house means it applies to individual states as well.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Fifth circuit Court doesn't have jurisdiction over California.
  - heywhatupboys 3y ago
    No, but circuit courts have long established precedence, especially in matters
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Literally not in this case. Circuit courts establish binding precedence in their circuit, but not elsewhere. Out-of-circuit opinions can be used for persuasive evidence, but there is absolutely nothing that requires the 9th Circuit (which includes California) to listen to what the 5th Circuit says. Especially when the 5th Circuit is disagreeing with every other circuit to have considered the matter. [I haven't read the opinion in this case to know what it's asserting, but I do know that every opinion I did read on whether or not the government urged COVID-19 moderation qualified as unconstitutional state action concluded that the plaintiffs hadn't met their showing that it did.]
- ericmay 3y ago
  I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but the essence of your point I think stands which is that it's likely that based on past outcomes that California could face a similar result as the case you are referring to.
  - parineum 3y ago
    > I'm not sure that is necessarily true If the case was decided on 1st amendment grounds, it's absolutely true.
- ofjcihen 3y ago
  Not a lawyer but if that’s the case, could California say “Fine, but Twitter can no longer do business in California”? Edit: not necessarily saying they should, I’m just wondering if they can. Edit 2: Looks like the most they could do is make it harder for social media companies in general to do business. If they were perceived as targeting Twitter then they could have grounds to sue. Based on 20 minutes of reading so grain of salt applies.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]
infamouscow 3y ago
The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the government i.e., laws the governments must follow.
- delfinom 3y ago
  The California law only mandates reporting how decisions are made, it does not do anything to how the company makes those decisions. If companies can now argue that complying with a law is against free speech, they can literally ignore all laws.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Commercial speech is regulated. That might not make a lot of sense in a time when "money is speech." But that's not a problem the people created.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    If Twitter solicits you to purchase Twitter Blue, that's Commercial Speech. If Twitter bans your account for praising Hitler, that's [Twitter exercising] political speech: Twitter would be protected by the First Amendment. The mere fact Twitter is a commercial, monetized service doesn't trigger a Twitter-wide First Amendment exception—any more than, say, the New York Times being a for-profit corporation opens the door for the feds to censor its political columns. Even if they're behind a paywall. Commercial Speech is a narrow carve-out for "advertisements and solicitations". It's not applicable to Twitter moderation.
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      There is a good argument that company policies about product use is commercial speech. "Here take this opioid, we have funded studies that say it won't hurt you" got regulated pretty hard. "We think the 'woke mind virus' is worse than capital-F Fascism and will moderate that way" is very much about Twitter's product.
      - perihelions 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

edgyquant 3y ago

They are both under the jurisdiction of the US federal court system. Something applying to the white house means it applies to individual states as well.

thfuran 3y ago
Fifth circuit Court doesn't have jurisdiction over California.
- heywhatupboys 3y ago
  No, but circuit courts have long established precedence, especially in matters
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Literally not in this case. Circuit courts establish binding precedence in their circuit, but not elsewhere. Out-of-circuit opinions can be used for persuasive evidence, but there is absolutely nothing that requires the 9th Circuit (which includes California) to listen to what the 5th Circuit says. Especially when the 5th Circuit is disagreeing with every other circuit to have considered the matter. [I haven't read the opinion in this case to know what it's asserting, but I do know that every opinion I did read on whether or not the government urged COVID-19 moderation qualified as unconstitutional state action concluded that the plaintiffs hadn't met their showing that it did.]
ericmay 3y ago
I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but the essence of your point I think stands which is that it's likely that based on past outcomes that California could face a similar result as the case you are referring to.
- parineum 3y ago
  > I'm not sure that is necessarily true If the case was decided on 1st amendment grounds, it's absolutely true.
ofjcihen 3y ago
Not a lawyer but if that’s the case, could California say “Fine, but Twitter can no longer do business in California”? Edit: not necessarily saying they should, I’m just wondering if they can. Edit 2: Looks like the most they could do is make it harder for social media companies in general to do business. If they were perceived as targeting Twitter then they could have grounds to sue. Based on 20 minutes of reading so grain of salt applies.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]

infamouscow 3y ago

The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the government i.e., laws the governments must follow.

delfinom 3y ago
The California law only mandates reporting how decisions are made, it does not do anything to how the company makes those decisions. If companies can now argue that complying with a law is against free speech, they can literally ignore all laws.
Zigurd 3y ago
Commercial speech is regulated. That might not make a lot of sense in a time when "money is speech." But that's not a problem the people created.
- perihelions 3y ago
  If Twitter solicits you to purchase Twitter Blue, that's Commercial Speech. If Twitter bans your account for praising Hitler, that's [Twitter exercising] political speech: Twitter would be protected by the First Amendment. The mere fact Twitter is a commercial, monetized service doesn't trigger a Twitter-wide First Amendment exception—any more than, say, the New York Times being a for-profit corporation opens the door for the feds to censor its political columns. Even if they're behind a paywall. Commercial Speech is a narrow carve-out for "advertisements and solicitations". It's not applicable to Twitter moderation.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    There is a good argument that company policies about product use is commercial speech. "Here take this opioid, we have funded studies that say it won't hurt you" got regulated pretty hard. "We think the 'woke mind virus' is worse than capital-F Fascism and will moderate that way" is very much about Twitter's product.
    - perihelions 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]