it sounds as if this was just a terribly-made case. The plaintiffs never even tried to assert an actual problem. They just made up potential problems. The decision is pretty harsh: "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
"Lack of standing" is a pretty standard tactic for when the Supreme Court doesn't want to make a decision on the merits. That way they leave room for a better case to be made some day, by somebody else.
I don't think this person is reliable or really cares about gov't intervention wrt free speech, to the extent that it is just a trojan horse issue for this person to sell their "COVID vaccines will kill you" articles.
It's actually concerning that someone would link to this here.
It wasn't even their anti-vax nonsense. It was somebody else's anti-vax nonsense. Even Barrett wasn't going to stand for them inventing a "right to listen" out of thin air.
jfengel|1 year ago
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
it sounds as if this was just a terribly-made case. The plaintiffs never even tried to assert an actual problem. They just made up potential problems. The decision is pretty harsh: "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
"Lack of standing" is a pretty standard tactic for when the Supreme Court doesn't want to make a decision on the merits. That way they leave room for a better case to be made some day, by somebody else.
tkel|1 year ago
It's actually concerning that someone would link to this here.
advisedwang|1 year ago
jfengel|1 year ago