4 ms·

That's up to the whims of the US Supreme Court. They're in the process of legalizing their own corruption right now. I don't think you should take for granted t

That's up to the whims of the US Supreme Court. They're in the process of legalizing their own corruption right now. I don't think you should take for granted that just because you have a solid and obvious argument, your rights will be protected by them.

stale2002 3y ago
> That's up to the whims of the US Supreme Court. The supreme court is certainly biased in favor of conservatives. But conservatives these days are generally much more in favor of free speech and libertarian arguments than the people on the left. So, for this specific issue, you should be happy that the supreme court is more conservative and willing to support free speech arguments.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Corruption doesn't mean "they do bad things". Instead it means that they are biased. That's totally wrong, it sounds almost like downplaying or excusing corruption (which is inherently a "bad thing" on its own) by comparing it to just having a bias. Corruption is not just having a bias (towards "people who give me bribes", if nothing else) but also acting upon that bias and mixing it up with a job that requires impartiality. In contrast, merely having bias is nowhere near as bad, particularly since someone can be strongly biased and still recuse themselves. When someone talks about "corruption" on the Supreme Court, it's probably not hyperbole about bias, but a reference to hundreds of thousands of dollars in alleged bribes.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Gotcha. But in reference to the actual topic here, my point still stands, even given your caveat. The people supporting open models are a much larger group than the minority who are trying to ban then.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vintermann 3y ago
    Well, that too. But corruption is "The use of entrusted power for private gain". It doesn't have to be personal gain, and it doesn't have to involve bribes. You just have to serve someone else over the public who entrusted you with power. Even without the scandals of gifts to SC judges, there's much room for judges to be corrupt.
greenavocado 3y ago
If it makes you feel better the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, including social media platforms where children could become members. The Court held that the law imposed an unconstitutional restriction on lawful speech. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the law interfered with the fundamental principle that states may not suppress the freedom of speech on public streets, parks, and in other public spaces just because the expression occurs online. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
- throwup238 3y ago
  > If it makes you feel better It doesn't. Pedophiles aren't high up on the priorities of the Federalist Society or Heritage Foundation or whoever Thomas' latest sugar daddy is.
  - greenavocado 3y ago
    I know. These are the digital rights the Supreme Court is fighting for.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      "Fighting for"? That's laughable. They're going to flip the second one of their patrons is involved, regardless of precedent.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    as if Justice Thomas hasn't had a completely consistent judicial philosophy his entire tenure. but don't let anyone stop you coping
- vintermann 3y ago
  No money was at stake there, I think? It's not that I think the US supreme court will never rule correctly in favor of speech or other basic freedoms. I'm sure they will, as long as none of their corrupt interests are threatened. As they say, "the rules only matter when the outcome doesn't".

stale2002 3y ago

> That's up to the whims of the US Supreme Court. The supreme court is certainly biased in favor of conservatives. But conservatives these days are generally much more in favor of free speech and libertarian arguments than the people on the left. So, for this specific issue, you should be happy that the supreme court is more conservative and willing to support free speech arguments.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Corruption doesn't mean "they do bad things". Instead it means that they are biased. That's totally wrong, it sounds almost like downplaying or excusing corruption (which is inherently a "bad thing" on its own) by comparing it to just having a bias. Corruption is not just having a bias (towards "people who give me bribes", if nothing else) but also acting upon that bias and mixing it up with a job that requires impartiality. In contrast, merely having bias is nowhere near as bad, particularly since someone can be strongly biased and still recuse themselves. When someone talks about "corruption" on the Supreme Court, it's probably not hyperbole about bias, but a reference to hundreds of thousands of dollars in alleged bribes.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Gotcha. But in reference to the actual topic here, my point still stands, even given your caveat. The people supporting open models are a much larger group than the minority who are trying to ban then.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 3y ago
  Well, that too. But corruption is "The use of entrusted power for private gain". It doesn't have to be personal gain, and it doesn't have to involve bribes. You just have to serve someone else over the public who entrusted you with power. Even without the scandals of gifts to SC judges, there's much room for judges to be corrupt.

greenavocado 3y ago

If it makes you feel better the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, including social media platforms where children could become members. The Court held that the law imposed an unconstitutional restriction on lawful speech. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the law interfered with the fundamental principle that states may not suppress the freedom of speech on public streets, parks, and in other public spaces just because the expression occurs online. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)

throwup238 3y ago
> If it makes you feel better It doesn't. Pedophiles aren't high up on the priorities of the Federalist Society or Heritage Foundation or whoever Thomas' latest sugar daddy is.
- greenavocado 3y ago
  I know. These are the digital rights the Supreme Court is fighting for.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    "Fighting for"? That's laughable. They're going to flip the second one of their patrons is involved, regardless of precedent.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  as if Justice Thomas hasn't had a completely consistent judicial philosophy his entire tenure. but don't let anyone stop you coping
vintermann 3y ago
No money was at stake there, I think? It's not that I think the US supreme court will never rule correctly in favor of speech or other basic freedoms. I'm sure they will, as long as none of their corrupt interests are threatened. As they say, "the rules only matter when the outcome doesn't".