I am surprised this made it to SCOTUS. When the government is demanding it, it becomes a 1st amendment issue. Meta is acting as an agent of the government. This should have never happened.
I am surprised this made it to SCOTUS. When the government is demanding it, it becomes a 1st amendment issue. Meta is acting as an agent of the government. This should have never happened.
Yes. The act of asking is itself the problem. Justices should not be asking questions of whether or not we should discard the constitution just because it makes her political masters have a hard time enacting their garbage.
Your report on my post was warranted. Noted. Warning to myself for violation for Rule #1.
But also, your response is hyberbolic and conspiratorial and, as a consequence, entirely unhelpful. The hyperbole of discarding the constitution and the conspiracy of her having political masters masks the missing connections between what Justice Jackson is asking and what you saying she’s doing. You’re talking to someone who doesn’t do not agree with you, so rather than making massive, unwarranted leaps in logic, let’s try increments.
We’ll start at the beginning: So, there are absolutely no circumstances when the government can do anything to promote the public’s interest in health and safety through factual information? None at all? Zero?
As I said, the government is free to push its own narrative through its own channels. If some government organization wants to spend their time spamming tweets, they’re free to do so. They can use their own websites, call for press conferences, that type of stuff.