that would be spicy indeed
-
-
-
in social impact I think this would be the biggest ruling since the warren court
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is not likely to be implemented. The social media companies will oppose it, and no similarly enormous interests will back it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not yet. But the first step is putting it out there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Clarence Thomas suggests” is a pretty good hint that current jurisprudence would tend to disagree
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the suggestion is that Congress might be permitted to do this, not that it might be found somewhere in the recesses of the Constitution
-
so, I guess I'd say it seems unlikely
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Prob not likely unless I find a magic lamp & tbh, once I use my 1st wish to get a gf, I won’t care as much about the web being a hellscape
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this is literally 'here are the ways legislature might be able to pass these types of laws constitutionally'
-
The judge did this after Amazon banned his documentary on their platform. This is kinda distasteful, although I for one would welcome social media companies being bound by First Amendment Laws.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Clarence Thomas suggests that social media companies may NOT have a First Amendment right to regulate speech on their platforms, analogizing them to "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation."