I see these internet content moderation cases as the second step in the process by conservative justices. Earlier this year in the Twitter v Taamneh case, the court ruled that the internet co.’s did have liability protection from 3rd party content. This was an important step in the actual goal which was to limit the scope of content moderation that these companies can perform.
With Twitter v Taamneh, the justices eliminated one of the potential justifications for content moderation. It’s hard for them to say that companies can’t moderate content if they are at risk of being sued.
I would expect we’ll see an ongoing push in this and future cases to limit the moderation of political and other forms of non-criminal / non-violent content.
This is the first article of yours that I've read. I appreciate the thorough summary. The legal terms you've used were approachable by a layman such as myself, as well I find that the points on which you've touched were mostly easy to follow. Readability 8/10
Alito and his 2 fellow dissenters will have a heavy lift getting 2 of the potential 3 remaining votes to uphold the injunction. Again, standing will be an easy out for the likely majority. Even more attenuated than mifepristone, if that’s possible.
We are only now learning that part of Leonard Leo’s Long March included salting state SG offices with aggressive, litigious partisans more than happy to sue Dem administrations over policies that hurt their (and implicitly their states’) feefees.
Also too, after blowing off 2 lower courts in that recent death penalty stay vacatur abomination, he’s now all “how dare we ignore the lower courts” this go-round. Ahh, jurisprudence.
I’d be very interested to see the content the government was attempting to moderate. My feeling is that it was not to oppress political opponents per say.
Generally speaking, Twitter has for a long time, even pre-Musk, had issues moderating its content. When I was doing “anti bad guy” work it was a huge game of whack-a-mole that Twitter itself was ill equipped to handle, though their desire to do so is suspect.
I see these internet content moderation cases as the second step in the process by conservative justices. Earlier this year in the Twitter v Taamneh case, the court ruled that the internet co.’s did have liability protection from 3rd party content. This was an important step in the actual goal which was to limit the scope of content moderation that these companies can perform.
With Twitter v Taamneh, the justices eliminated one of the potential justifications for content moderation. It’s hard for them to say that companies can’t moderate content if they are at risk of being sued.
I would expect we’ll see an ongoing push in this and future cases to limit the moderation of political and other forms of non-criminal / non-violent content.
This is the first article of yours that I've read. I appreciate the thorough summary. The legal terms you've used were approachable by a layman such as myself, as well I find that the points on which you've touched were mostly easy to follow. Readability 8/10
Alito and his 2 fellow dissenters will have a heavy lift getting 2 of the potential 3 remaining votes to uphold the injunction. Again, standing will be an easy out for the likely majority. Even more attenuated than mifepristone, if that’s possible.
We are only now learning that part of Leonard Leo’s Long March included salting state SG offices with aggressive, litigious partisans more than happy to sue Dem administrations over policies that hurt their (and implicitly their states’) feefees.
Also too, after blowing off 2 lower courts in that recent death penalty stay vacatur abomination, he’s now all “how dare we ignore the lower courts” this go-round. Ahh, jurisprudence.
I’d be very interested to see the content the government was attempting to moderate. My feeling is that it was not to oppress political opponents per say.
Generally speaking, Twitter has for a long time, even pre-Musk, had issues moderating its content. When I was doing “anti bad guy” work it was a huge game of whack-a-mole that Twitter itself was ill equipped to handle, though their desire to do so is suspect.
That’s why there are links to the rulings.
On the opinions relating to orders page, the case is dated "10/23" on the case chart.
Looks like a typo. Also, "BK" looks wrong. Kavanaugh didn't write there. Gorsuch did.
Yes, I’m not responsible for the Supreme Court’s website.
The reference is for the benefit for the justices. One of them surely is a reader.
True. Justice Alito, please correct.