zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. TeeMas+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-17 14:19:58
And your point is?
replies(1): >>notaco+52
2. notaco+52[view] [source] 2022-12-17 14:39:01
>>TeeMas+(OP)
Clearly if you read the context, that emmelaich's invocation of the "penumbra" doctrine to suggest that the first amendment covers Twitter's actions is weak. It does not, even when there's a connection to reports from a government agency. There are other arguments for why Twitter's actions were wrong, perhaps even that it's a first-amendment issue, but that one just doesn't work in the context of how the constitution is currently being interpreted. The one-line slam dunk is really anything but.

Also, please read the guidelines about low-effort comments.

replies(1): >>emmela+yp1
◧◩
3. emmela+yp1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 23:32:05
>>notaco+52
Actually, I just thought it was a useful concept for anyone arguing about the literal meaning of the constitution. Wasn't especially arguing for either side.

Though having the FBI and Twitter policy people being in such close communication must be eyebrow raising at least. And it a little bizarre honestly.

[go to top]