[jasonshaev]

Not a lawyer but doesn't this have serious 1st amendment problems?

Article gets into this a bit: "Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the First Amendment and Section 230, a bill that shields internet providers and tech companies from liability for the posts, photos and videos people share on their sites, provide a strong defense in many instances for websites and providers facing lawsuits over hosting information about abortion access."

[SamoyedFurFluff]

The purpose of the law isn’t made with any consideration of its legality. This is a signal to force people to ask themselves if they’re willing to be prosecuted to prove out their rights.

[plorg]

It only has 1st amendment problems if the courts care. Making abortion illegal is an ideological project that the majority of the current SCOTUS and their acolytes has been working towards for at least 40 years. If you think they're going to let the plain text of the constitution, federal law, or its interpreted tradition get in the way of that you have not been paying attention.

[jasonshaev]

I have been paying attention :). For what it's worth, a handful of recent state laws restricting speech have been struck down by the courts (Florida social media bill) or are blocked from being enforced (Texas social media bill blocked by Supreme Court) or are in the process of being litigated (Florida stop WOKE act).

While none of those bills related to abortion, I'm still skeptical the courts would let this bill stand

[Rebelgecko]

It's basically the Republican version of states that ban websites from hosting blueprints that tell how to make firearms.

It's more about scoring brownie points with your base and tying up your opponents in litigation for years... Even if they know the law is blatantly unconstitutional, there's no real downside to the legislatures (assuming their constituents support the unconstitutional law)

[bedast]

There is speech that is not considered protected by the first amendment. I suspect the states would argue the promotion of committing unlawful acts to be unprotected speech.

Where this would fall afoul is likely interstate commerce. South Carolina can't declare a website hosted in California illegal due to jurisdiction. They might be able to convince ISPs to block them, though.

[andsoitis]

The strategy is one of intimidation.

[jasonshaev]

Agreed. The future path for this law (if it gets passed) is obvious: the South Carolina agency charged with enforcing the law gets sued in federal court, the law is likely put on hold and eventually struck down as unconstitutional. But the "chilling" effect of the law still has a serious impact, despite it being unserious legislation.

[bell-cot]

Depends on how packed the Supreme Court is, with the "Right" Justices, when the test case get to it.