This was an immensely enjoyable read. I absolutely love unusual amicus briefs (another favorite of mine is the recent one on the importance of unlabeled satire by The Onion News). Wow. I can't...
This was an immensely enjoyable read. I absolutely love unusual amicus briefs (another favorite of mine is the recent one on the importance of unlabeled satire by The Onion News).
Wow. I can't possibly see a stronger argument than literally saying "we regularly remove you, your family, and your staff's dox, along with n-words and violent threats from our massive, million+ view forums. This law would make that no longer possible".
The community then moved to a third site, Patriots.win, which is still operational. Its top post of all time is the former president’s tweet calling for a “big protest” in DC on January 6, 2021. The top comment on that post is: “Well, shit. We've got marching orders, frens.” ^15
^15 Patriots.win, “TRUMP TWEET DADDY SAYS BE IN DC ON JAN. 6TH” available at ...
Not everyone approves of amici and their policies. For example, the aptly named user “HateSpeechLuvr” had this to say about one moderator:
[Screenshot] HateSpeechLuvr: Orangejulius is a f****t pedophile n****r who needs to be shot
Under the challenged laws, removal of such a scintillating contribution to legal discourse would require amici to provide HateSpeechLuvr with an individualized explanation for the removal, and expose amici to the risk of legal action by the state, or, more dangerously, private actors (like Mr. Luvr).
Amici would like to continue to maintain r/law and r/SCOTUS as forums for productive conversations about topics that interest them.
An important contribution. The things that are there are important and well-written. I hope the examples can get the court to see what's at stake. I hope other groups also focus on the insanity of...
An important contribution. The things that are there are important and well-written. I hope the examples can get the court to see what's at stake.
I hope other groups also focus on the insanity of these laws in relation to spam, and off-topic content more directly:
Being unable to remove spam from private platforms without potentially incurring liability is exactly the same as if someone were to go to your house (or wall, or windowed facade) and stuck up a Nazi-symbol, an advertisement, gibberish or whatever and you could be penalized for taking it down.
Being unable to remove off-topic content is essentially equivalent to preventing me from turning away someone yelling out nonsense in the middle of a concert at a private venue, or having someone walk around in your office.
The argument the mods have that this is about groups wanting to force their views on others because those ideas are losing out in the marketplace of ideas is powerful.
So much more is also at stake, beyond hate, harassment and the like. It's about some of the most basic principles of speech online.
The opposing results from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in relation to these laws created a circuit split.
In September 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to jointly hear Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton on questions of whether the Florida and Texas state laws are in compliance with the 1st Amendment.[18][19][20]
NetChoice
NetChoice is a lobbying group for multinational technology companies that was founded in 2001. It represents about 30 social media, search and e-commerce firms including Amazon, AOL, Google, Meta (corporate parent of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), eBay, PayPal, TikTok, Etsy and Yahoo!.[21]
This was an immensely enjoyable read. I absolutely love unusual amicus briefs (another favorite of mine is the recent one on the importance of unlabeled satire by The Onion News).
Wow. I can't possibly see a stronger argument than literally saying "we regularly remove you, your family, and your staff's dox, along with n-words and violent threats from our massive, million+ view forums. This law would make that no longer possible".
I rather enjoyed the 6th related snark:
An important contribution. The things that are there are important and well-written. I hope the examples can get the court to see what's at stake.
I hope other groups also focus on the insanity of these laws in relation to spam, and off-topic content more directly:
Being unable to remove spam from private platforms without potentially incurring liability is exactly the same as if someone were to go to your house (or wall, or windowed facade) and stuck up a Nazi-symbol, an advertisement, gibberish or whatever and you could be penalized for taking it down.
Being unable to remove off-topic content is essentially equivalent to preventing me from turning away someone yelling out nonsense in the middle of a concert at a private venue, or having someone walk around in your office.
The argument the mods have that this is about groups wanting to force their views on others because those ideas are losing out in the marketplace of ideas is powerful.
So much more is also at stake, beyond hate, harassment and the like. It's about some of the most basic principles of speech online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_v._NetChoice,_LLC