I suspect faggot posobiec is posting twisted fake news as usual. Or at least half truths.
Did Thomas actually make a ruling here or is it just an opinion with zero legal repercussions? Because knowing faggot posobiec and his opportunistic fake news ways, I bet it’s the latter.
Why don't you read the source rather then opine from a position of ignorance?
Did Thomas actually make a ruling here is a question you could easily answer yourself by simply reading the sourced documents rather then acting like some liberal and write a comment without finding out the facts.
Its a fucking SCOTUS ruling for chirsts sake, it's not like it's some obscure PDF lucking in the dark web, you can literally go right to SCOTUS website and read the judgement for yourself.
For the record, it is a SCOTUS ruling, not an opinion, Justice Thomas wrote the consensus. It is a legally binding decision.
SCOTUS is giving warning to Congress to do their fucking jobs before they do it for them.
The source is prosobiec because he didn’t post a source. Maybe he should have included a link of some kind so that we don’t (a) think the big tech companies are bound by the word of one justice and (b) we don’t get lost in a rabbit hole scouring the internet trying to find it
You obviously didn't read it. Here, let me quote the last two sentences:
The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and
the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
What are all those attorney disciplines for? 40 days to prove in writing why the lawyers shouldn’t be disbarred from participating in the Supreme Court again? Is that normal?
Hell if I know. I can answer most questions about medicine but very little about the law. But unless section 230 just became invalid — which I don’t see that it did — then I don’t think Thomas did anything.
I suspect faggot posobiec is posting twisted fake news as usual. Or at least half truths.
Did Thomas actually make a ruling here or is it just an opinion with zero legal repercussions? Because knowing faggot posobiec and his opportunistic fake news ways, I bet it’s the latter.
Why don't you read the source rather then opine from a position of ignorance?
Did Thomas actually make a ruling here is a question you could easily answer yourself by simply reading the sourced documents rather then acting like some liberal and write a comment without finding out the facts.
Its a fucking SCOTUS ruling for chirsts sake, it's not like it's some obscure PDF lucking in the dark web, you can literally go right to SCOTUS website and read the judgement for yourself.
For the record, it is a SCOTUS ruling, not an opinion, Justice Thomas wrote the consensus. It is a legally binding decision.
SCOTUS is giving warning to Congress to do their fucking jobs before they do it for them.
The source is prosobiec because he didn’t post a source. Maybe he should have included a link of some kind so that we don’t (a) think the big tech companies are bound by the word of one justice and (b) we don’t get lost in a rabbit hole scouring the internet trying to find it
He posted the link in his follow up tweet, which I also posted.
A legally binding position? I’d love to hear you try and explain that one. Break it down for everyone what exactly Thomas did here. I dare you.
Yes, its a SCOTUS decision. I don't have to break anything down for you, clearly your internet law degree makes you some kind of an authority. LOL
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
It is literally a court order, not sure how you believe a court order is not a biding legal position, but you are the legal expert clearly.
You obviously didn't read it. Here, let me quote the last two sentences:
The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
What are all those attorney disciplines for? 40 days to prove in writing why the lawyers shouldn’t be disbarred from participating in the Supreme Court again? Is that normal?
BMD, he wouldn’t issue an opinion unless there was an 11th circuit decision that required an opinion, correct?
Hell if I know. I can answer most questions about medicine but very little about the law. But unless section 230 just became invalid — which I don’t see that it did — then I don’t think Thomas did anything.
Every time something bad happens. Suddenly, the corporate gop mouthpieces come and talk about something else
Biden is allowed to consor his official communication channels even though Trump could do so? OMG SECTION 230 COME AND TALK ABOUT THIS INSTEAD