I am amused by Kagan starting with "Not even thirty years ago, this Court felt the need to explain to the opinion-reading public that the “Internet is an international network of interconnected computers.” Things have changed since then."
"And those government actors will generally be better positioned than courts to respond to the emerging challenges social-media entities pose." nice dig at Loper Bright there, heh
This is such a fucking frustrating argument. The Court completely misses that the purpose of a request for injunction based on a facial challenge is to prevent having to build the systems to allow for compliance with a plainly unconstitutional law.
In general, courts have failed to grasp the amount of *work* it takes to comply with this bullshit. Mississippi passed HB 1126 (their bullshit social media deanonymization and content censorship law) 2024-04-30 with an effective date of 2024-07-01, giving 62 days to build entirely new systems.
Not only are these laws themselves a prior restraint on protected speech, which is a presumptive harm even if it's anticipatory, but the work you need to do to prepare to comply with them incurs costs that are not recoverable.
I have, of course, spent the last 15 minutes trying to find the goddamn case to cite that I'm thinking of to justify "the costs of preparing to comply with an unconstitutional law is grounds for bringing a facial challenge instead of an as-applied challenge" but I'm having no luck, sigh.
(If anyone with actual Westlaw access has a few seconds to help out there, I would appreciate it, but it's probably not super necessary, which is why I stopped at 15 minutes.)
