Mike Masnick: Need to read more closely but, it looks like the court did not destroy the internet today with the NetChoice decision. They may have actually gotten it right? More analysis later.

Need to read more closely but, it looks like the court did not destroy the internet today with the NetChoice decision. They may have actually gotten it right? More analysis later.

I just skimmed it, but it seems they're saying "You idiots didn't consider the 1A implications, like, OF COURSE there are 1A implications, do it over again and remember that!"

They also seem (again, I just skimmed) to recognize how complex the set of services offered by social media companies are, and how little effort was put into the regulation regarding how it impacts that set.

Seems like SCOTUS punted on the cases. But the good news is that the punt was downed inside the two yard line.

Please translate to MMO or TTRPG. :)

SCOTUS misty stepped across the river from the gelatinous in round 1 of combat?

Works. :)

It will be back; check back in the October 26 term of the SCt

"No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow."

Exactly.

I think it'd be easy for the court to say "no you cannot ban speech on the internet what the fuck" but I'll take punting I guess

Punting it appears. Sending it back on procedural grounds.

From the syllabus, this looks like a refreshingly good decision

Post