5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoGotcha. 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 agoWell, 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.