Wow, what a slam. Go back & analyze not just the specific case at hand, but generate a complete analysis of who these laws would apply to, in which circumstance

Wow, what a slam. Go back & analyze not just the specific case at hand, but generate a complete analysis of who these laws would apply to, in which circumstances, and the constitutionality of all. I feel like it's submitting your homework & being told you need to go do a thesis on the topic to get credit. There's some very promising guidance too. Recognizing that there is a right to expression, that these platforms aren't magically stripped of their expression rights because they host huge volumes or because they don't themselves post kneecaps the rock out of some very strong absurd censorship complainers. > States (and their citizens) are of course right to want an expressive realm in which the public has access to a wide range of views. But the way the First Amendment achieves that goal is by preventing the government from "tilt[ing] public debate in a preferred direction" Including forcing companies to achieve that preferred balance for them. Surprisingly promising start. I started in on the opinions but man these are long; interested to see how the various judges tackle this.