General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDersh claims TFG's suits against Google and the other tech companies are about the 1st amendment
Hes a contemptible and very strange man.
https://www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1412942540987244545
dchill
(38,583 posts)It'll be worse for you if you don't know.
TheBlackAdder
(28,239 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)the same insane ramblings he'd otherwise shit onto Twitter, and then have people hand them out at bus stops and on street corners, he almost certainly won't be imprisoned by any government entity.
E.G. the rights enshrined by the 1A are covered, and intact.
ecstatic
(32,770 posts)This is just another disgusting grift. The idiots who still believe tfg will open their wallets and probably get duped into a recurring monthly donation.
UTUSN
(70,772 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,754 posts)PSA on First Amendment
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)OAITW r.2.0
(24,723 posts)Written in a way, even conservatives can understand.
WarGamer
(12,491 posts)The author has done more than draw a cartoon.
It's not so simple, LMPV...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-facebook-and-google-state-actors
Thus even if litigants and judges have been slow to see it, and even if the implications are dramatic, there is a strong argument under existing doctrine that Google and Facebook are state actors when they block objectionable content. Immunity plus pressure has to equal state action. The real question is not whether the Constitution applies to these mega-platforms content moderation policies. Its what rules the Constitution requires. In a second post, Ill turn to that issue.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,754 posts)This was an amusing paper from a law professor but so far no court had come close to adopting this position in the real world. I doubt that this is the case where a court would consider adopting this amusing theory.
In the real world this is called secondary authority that a court can ignore. I doubt that this theory could get published in a good law review. I remember reviewing amusing theories that were not backed with any real authority and rejecting these articles. The one case cited supporting this theory is a stretch that I doubt that any court would follow. Law professors like amusing theories but these theories are meaningless unless they are adopted by a court and affirmed on appeal.
I found this theory amusing and this amusing theory reminds why I do not miss being on law review
BTW, I trust Tribe (I still have a copy of his treatise from law school)
Link to tweet
?s=20
WarGamer
(12,491 posts)Sometimes I fear that people don't read really good links that provoke thought.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,754 posts)That was a long time ago. Again I still have a fairly early draft of Tribes treatise that my kids laughed at
oasis
(49,437 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding this concept?
Peppertoo
(435 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Not being a Statesider, I am open to clarification.
JohnSJ
(92,488 posts)What this demonstrates is that Dershowitz was always a trumper
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)"Of course! 'Congress shall make no law'--"
Imma stop you right there; how is Congress involved in running Google and Facebook, and what law did Congress make that abridged anyone's right to free speech?
RockRaven
(15,058 posts)a "massage" from Epstein's "staff."
At this point, I don't think Captain Underpants can make a claim that anyone should spend any time seriously considering. Just move along, there's nothing useful to be heard if he is the one speaking.
Renew Deal
(81,890 posts)It can be and was used to moderate him. I believe theres some willingness to take on Section 230 in the Supreme Court. But I dont think Trumps argument stands a chance because you can just declare companies government entities.
RANDYWILDMAN
(2,678 posts)Hey Alan when you come clean under oath about what you know and did with Epstein, then and only then, can you come back and talk about law !!!