Since you apparently just joined us here, I always link to the documents. The "subtle linkage" here was because the first two paragraphs were referring to both cases, combined, and so the third paragraph had the first text that differentiated between the cases. In any event, welcome.
Apologies for the false presumption, I clicked because I did not know THIS was before the court yet - saw your article via twitter and jumped on it hoping to be able to read/listen to the oral argument's (you are quick). Upon reading it it seemed like a NYT, etc. article that links to its own pieces, assuming yours were similar links to prior blog posts, I was frustrated. Should have clicked before commenting. Nonetheless, thank you for the links/case names at the bottom.
No, totally understood. Trust me, I have been an advocate of “post the link” for more than 20 years now. (Arguably one of *the* leading people doing so and pushing others to do so, hence my response!)
Am I right in thinking all of this becomes moot if, instead of blocking citizens’ accounts, officials muted them instead? The main issue seems to be that everyone has a right to see what leaders are saying, not that everyone has a right to be heard all the time?
Not quite. I think it would make a much harder case, but look at the First Amendment values detailed by Kedem. At least the second would remain, and, depending on the awareness/consequences of the muting, possibly the third and fourth.
Always nice to hear about the court having a serious, nuanced discussion about a genuinely difficult issue.
Nice to see the West Wing cite. A better link might be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxxrbATivj0
Always nice to hear from Ainsley even if Joe Quincy would have been nice too.
Republicans were nicer back then.
I think because I had Joe Quincy on my mind, I immediately thought of this scene this morning and couldn't get it out of my head.
Are you really not going to cite to the case or oral argument?
Erm? The first two links in the piece are to the oral arguments.
I could add a link to the docket with the full case names at the bottom, though.
Thx did not see the subtle linkage to the transcripts. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-611
Since you apparently just joined us here, I always link to the documents. The "subtle linkage" here was because the first two paragraphs were referring to both cases, combined, and so the third paragraph had the first text that differentiated between the cases. In any event, welcome.
Apologies for the false presumption, I clicked because I did not know THIS was before the court yet - saw your article via twitter and jumped on it hoping to be able to read/listen to the oral argument's (you are quick). Upon reading it it seemed like a NYT, etc. article that links to its own pieces, assuming yours were similar links to prior blog posts, I was frustrated. Should have clicked before commenting. Nonetheless, thank you for the links/case names at the bottom.
No, totally understood. Trust me, I have been an advocate of “post the link” for more than 20 years now. (Arguably one of *the* leading people doing so and pushing others to do so, hence my response!)
Am I right in thinking all of this becomes moot if, instead of blocking citizens’ accounts, officials muted them instead? The main issue seems to be that everyone has a right to see what leaders are saying, not that everyone has a right to be heard all the time?
Not quite. I think it would make a much harder case, but look at the First Amendment values detailed by Kedem. At least the second would remain, and, depending on the awareness/consequences of the muting, possibly the third and fourth.