[mhneu]

Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion.

A few other sources:

- Lawrence Tribe, a very senior center-left constitutional lawyer and Harvard prof: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050

"A disgraceful Fifth Circuit decision"

- Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press (a deeply centrist/neutral organization) https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377

"Just finished reading the 5th Circuit’s decision in the NetChoice v. Paxton case and it’s . . . not good. To say the First Amendment analysis is deeply flawed would be an understatement."

- Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney who's also been a Federalist Society backer: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929

"I am old-fashioned, but I would think that inferior courts start with what the Supreme Court has said the text means."

(I did a quick search and found three sources that span the ideological spectrum, which show how widespread the negativity about this decision has been.)

This is a terribly-reasoned decision that doesn't make much legal sense. It's an ideological decision, motivated by the feeling that rightwing voices, which are actually boosted by the rich people that own social media, are instead, against all sense, suppressed.

[leereeves]

> - Lawrence Tribe, a very senior center-left constitutional lawyer and Harvard prof: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050

That tweet isn't even about this case, it's about voting rights for felons.

[catiopatio]

> Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion.

Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, uniquely qualified to weigh in on first amendment law, wrote a column on first amendment and speech issues for the Washington Post for years, and frankly, I imagine would be pretty disappointed (but not surprised, in these illiberal times), to be written off as a “conservative attorney” when he’s consistently espoused libertarian views over the decades.

On top of which, he hasn’t actually weighed in on this ruling yet, and may very well take umbrage with the decision!

His blog at reason did, in fact, post a guest article arguing that the ruling falls afoul of the takings clause.

> Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney and notable Federalist Society backer

You just disqualified Volokh for being a “conservative attorney”.

Now you’re citing a conservative attorney whose opinion suits your argument?

That’s not arguing logically or in good faith, even putting aside the fact that your claims regarding Volokh are a fabrication.

[haswell]

The way I read the parent comment, they dismissed Volokh for stated reasons, but then provided three other sources to bolster the idea that early analysis is generally all against this ruling.

They mentioned they cited sources across the ideological spectrum. In theory, that's good.

It sounds like the primary issue here is mischaracterization of Volokh, but that doesn't necessarily change or invalidate the other sources mentioned.