Hacker News Reader

Comment by edgyquant | Hacker News Reader

They are both under the jurisdiction of the US federal court system. Something applying to the white house means it applies to individual states as well.

View on HN

I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but the essence of your point I think stands which is that it's likely that based on past outcomes that California could face a similar result as the case you are referring to.

> I'm not sure that is necessarily true

If the case was decided on 1st amendment grounds, it's absolutely true.

Fifth circuit Court doesn't have jurisdiction over California.

No, but circuit courts have long established precedence, especially in matters

Literally not in this case. Circuit courts establish binding precedence in their circuit, but not elsewhere. Out-of-circuit opinions can be used for persuasive evidence, but there is absolutely nothing that requires the 9th Circuit (which includes California) to listen to what the 5th Circuit says. Especially when the 5th Circuit is disagreeing with every other circuit to have considered the matter. [I haven't read the opinion in this case to know what it's asserting, but I do know that every opinion I did read on whether or not the government urged COVID-19 moderation qualified as unconstitutional state action concluded that the plaintiffs hadn't met their showing that it did.]

Not a lawyer but if that’s the case, could California say “Fine, but Twitter can no longer do business in California”?

Edit: not necessarily saying they should, I’m just wondering if they can.

Edit 2: Looks like the most they could do is make it harder for social media companies in general to do business. If they were perceived as targeting Twitter then they could have grounds to sue.

Based on 20 minutes of reading so grain of salt applies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com