Hacker News Reader

Comment by llamaimperative | Hacker News Reader

Signal of belief in an excessively strong state?

Clarence Thomas is not actually conservative in the small government sense.

Neil Gorsuch is though and he signed on too. He even said that while he thought the government had to prove a higher standard than the opinion required, it didn’t matter to the decision because the government in his mind had met that even higher standard anyway.

Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch?

He’s not a small government conservative, lol.

Pss, dude, nobody is small government anything. They are just want the regulation to apply in a manner that they are content with.

Right, which is why "Justice XYZ agrees" does not (by itself) say anything at all about the moral or political valence of the decision.

I have met true-to-life anarchists that would be perfectly happy living in a cabin in the woods. At least that's their theory, I had my doubts about their survival skill in such cabin in the woods communities after a month or so. I know it has happened but it's exceedingly rarely successful

So you quote the extreme interpretation of the decision by the dissenters to describe what he believes as opposed to using his own words? Seems unfair.

Yes, I believe that in a court case, when someone says "what about Scenario X" and then you write an opinion that fails to preclude Scenario X, you are writing an opinion that can be criticized for allowing Scenario X.

Gorsuch saying "I am not considering Scenario X" does not actually mean his opinion precludes it. His opinion, as written, allows it.

signal in belief that freedom of speech has limits, and it doesn't extend to a foreign adversary hoping to decimate the USA has been my conclusion from the 9-0 decision of SCOTUS

Oh brilliant. So all we need to curtail someone's speech is assert they are "a foreign adversary hoping to decimate the USA?"

That clarifies things!

What about the speech of "the enemy from within" who is "more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these other countries"?

(And to be clear: I think TikTok is awful and should be banned, but I want much, much clearer arguments than this as to why it is able to be banned under our Constitution)

THen you should go read the SCOTUS final decision, it's pretty succinct for a law document.

It’s pretty clear you haven’t read it (or the original law).

It allows US POTUS to force American companies not to serve content that POTUS says is 1) under foreign control and 2) a national security concern.

Note that (1) can be satisfied by POTUS simply saying the company is under the influence of foreign entities.

I.e., there is nothing in the law or the ruling that prevents POTUS from saying “Bluesky is under China’s influence” and banning it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com