3 ms·

Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he pro-sterilization, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentatio

Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he pro-sterilization, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?

freejazz 3y ago
I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law.
- philwelch 3y ago
  I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there either.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      I don’t think this law violates the First Amendment, and it wasn’t particularly clear that was your objection in the first place. I’m also not sure why you put the word “characterization” in quotes since I didn’t use it.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Because I don't think its much of a characterization. You don't? Well that's great. It never occurred to you that I might think so? Have you read any actual commentary on this law? Its by far its biggest issue
        philwelch 3y ago
        This was your comment that I was replying to, with emphasis added: > I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law. This comment implies that your objection to the law was not that it infringed upon constitutional rights, but rather that it exceeded the powers of Florida legislature. This was the point I was replying to. If that’s not the point you intended to make, then never mind.

Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he pro-sterilization, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?

freejazz 3y ago

I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law.

philwelch 3y ago
I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.
- freejazz 3y ago
  Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there either.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I don’t think this law violates the First Amendment, and it wasn’t particularly clear that was your objection in the first place. I’m also not sure why you put the word “characterization” in quotes since I didn’t use it.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Because I don't think its much of a characterization. You don't? Well that's great. It never occurred to you that I might think so? Have you read any actual commentary on this law? Its by far its biggest issue
      - philwelch 3y ago
        This was your comment that I was replying to, with emphasis added: > I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law. This comment implies that your objection to the law was not that it infringed upon constitutional rights, but rather that it exceeded the powers of Florida legislature. This was the point I was replying to. If that’s not the point you intended to make, then never mind.