Stanford files amicus brief in Murthy vs. Missouri

cyber.fsi.stanford.edu

16 points·beefman··6 comments

At least as far as the arguments made in March SCOTUS seemed largely skeptical of the limits some states seem to want to put on government as far as their communication with social media companies:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-seems-skept...

Incredibly hypocritical of them to run to the first amendment as a defense, when they were working to remove other people’s freedom of speech.

Telling someone they’re wrong or that they disagree with someone, even if they are a part of the government while doing so, is not removing someone’s freedom of speech.

Government, and those in it, also have a right to speech.

Yeah that’s neither what they did nor how the first amendment works. The first amendment places restrictions on what the government can do not what private entities can and cannot restrict.

It is reasonably well established that the government can't ask others to do what it can't legally do.

The First Amendment says that the government can't tell the NYT not to publish stories about the price of tea in China.

How is that different from the First Amendment says that the government can't tell Facebook not to publish stories about the price of tea in China?

You seem to be interchangeably using 'ask' (make a case for) and 'tell' (order under power of law).

The difference between these two words gets to the heart of the matter, because the former is legal and totally okay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com