←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 4 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.679s | source
Show context
smallmancontrov ◴[12 Jul 25 18:51 UTC] No.44544139[source]▶
"Party of free speech," my ass.
replies(6): >>44544183 #>>44544228 #>>44544233 #>>44544391 #>>44544956 #>>44545865 #
zeroonetwothree ◴[12 Jul 25 19:22 UTC] No.44544391[source]▶
Neither of the two parties is very much in favor of free speech. The left has cancel culture and policing pronouns while the right has blocking books with gay characters and age verification laws.
replies(5): >>44544650 #>>44545019 #>>44545299 #>>44545300 #>>44545650 #
archagon ◴[12 Jul 25 19:55 UTC] No.44544650[source]▶
“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).
replies(3): >>44544768 #>>44545130 #>>44545181 #
1. YetAnotherNick ◴[12 Jul 25 20:13 UTC] No.44544768[source]▶
Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.
replies(2): >>44544783 #>>44544987 #
2. archagon ◴[12 Jul 25 20:15 UTC] No.44544783[source]▶
The government had no capacity to “order” Twitter to do this, in stark contrast to this law.
replies(1): >>44545029 #
3. yakz ◴[12 Jul 25 20:40 UTC] No.44544987[source]▶
The government didn't do that.

"The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

4. reliabilityguy ◴[12 Jul 25 20:46 UTC] No.44545029[source]▶
And yet they did, and twitter did comply.