Although a majority appeared to think the states went too far, the ultimate resolution — particularly as to the Florida law — could be more complicated.
Paul Clement supporting something generally is a red flag but here the laws are problematic enough that the "stopped clock" rule probably applies. Didn't expect Etsy questions.
There was a case Douglas decided back in the 40's that invoked and examined the history of Comstockery and the US Mail service one of those cases discussed reached back to JC Calhoun (JFK's favorite Democrat) who had argued that the slave states had the right to intercept pamphlets mailed from the north that were intended to incite the Nigras to rebel and argued that the States as a matter of keeping the peace &c., had the right to intercept the pamphlets to forbid their distribution. Who decides? So what all of this involves, in our Administrative Agency form of 'government' goes back in recent times to the Clinton era which Kagan J., had a part in as solicitor general. The want of the SPM was/is the place the internet under the common carrier rule like they did with the telecommunications act of 1984. Prior to RayGun's 'nationalization' of CTV, under the auspices of the FCC, there were state CTV commissions. In NYS we had all stations originating in NYS but several from NYC which was nice. So under the FCC, the conventional wisdom is that they control speech by Power over Privilege of renewing licensing thereby allowing particular persons to broadcast. They make a Big point that they don't "moderate" they only respond to complaints from The Public i.e., private PAC like groups opposed to various forms of speech. So there's what, 5 people on the FCC board that control or more accurately Chill speech or else whoever states want to appoint to do statewide..
To me it's about interstate commerce. CTV nowadays has all sorts of tiers and consortiums primarily from the USA, whereas various pay services via the internet - going back to HBO in the days of State Commissions - have become somewhat diverse, allowing NATO friendly broadcasting, films &c. which is still restricted to some extent.
Confessing, I haven't seen the law, but presumably it is facially unconstitutional. Either the Federal Government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce or you vindicate JC Calhoun and allow states to do so with no adverse consequences.
Right companies are people by definition able to make contributions, citizens united etc. so they get to decide what is on their platform, I know I’m over simplifying because I’m irritated
[Obligatory IANAL, but…] Okay, so Uber and Venmo are not primarily engaged in activities that are protected by the First Amendment, but I sure don’t get how one could say Gmail is not speech and Etsy sells art, i.e. creative expression, not speech qua speech, but still protected by the First Amendment, no?
I’m very much not a lawyer but as the companies are, by the courts definition people, it seems they they have the right to say what is said or not on their platform. Now if it was the governments platform that would be another matter.
Paul Clement supporting something generally is a red flag but here the laws are problematic enough that the "stopped clock" rule probably applies. Didn't expect Etsy questions.
There was a case Douglas decided back in the 40's that invoked and examined the history of Comstockery and the US Mail service one of those cases discussed reached back to JC Calhoun (JFK's favorite Democrat) who had argued that the slave states had the right to intercept pamphlets mailed from the north that were intended to incite the Nigras to rebel and argued that the States as a matter of keeping the peace &c., had the right to intercept the pamphlets to forbid their distribution. Who decides? So what all of this involves, in our Administrative Agency form of 'government' goes back in recent times to the Clinton era which Kagan J., had a part in as solicitor general. The want of the SPM was/is the place the internet under the common carrier rule like they did with the telecommunications act of 1984. Prior to RayGun's 'nationalization' of CTV, under the auspices of the FCC, there were state CTV commissions. In NYS we had all stations originating in NYS but several from NYC which was nice. So under the FCC, the conventional wisdom is that they control speech by Power over Privilege of renewing licensing thereby allowing particular persons to broadcast. They make a Big point that they don't "moderate" they only respond to complaints from The Public i.e., private PAC like groups opposed to various forms of speech. So there's what, 5 people on the FCC board that control or more accurately Chill speech or else whoever states want to appoint to do statewide..
To me it's about interstate commerce. CTV nowadays has all sorts of tiers and consortiums primarily from the USA, whereas various pay services via the internet - going back to HBO in the days of State Commissions - have become somewhat diverse, allowing NATO friendly broadcasting, films &c. which is still restricted to some extent.
Confessing, I haven't seen the law, but presumably it is facially unconstitutional. Either the Federal Government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce or you vindicate JC Calhoun and allow states to do so with no adverse consequences.
Right companies are people by definition able to make contributions, citizens united etc. so they get to decide what is on their platform, I know I’m over simplifying because I’m irritated
[Obligatory IANAL, but…] Okay, so Uber and Venmo are not primarily engaged in activities that are protected by the First Amendment, but I sure don’t get how one could say Gmail is not speech and Etsy sells art, i.e. creative expression, not speech qua speech, but still protected by the First Amendment, no?
I’m very much not a lawyer but as the companies are, by the courts definition people, it seems they they have the right to say what is said or not on their platform. Now if it was the governments platform that would be another matter.
Thank you again and again for making this readable.