rahaeli: (The reason I am keeping a running tally of the Pruneyard references is that Pruneyard is like literally the only case that's on the state's side, and it's been narrowed down by subsequent jurisprudence that literally everyone's attitude to it is "let's just ... agree not to talk about Pruneyard")

oh wow, Justice Sotomayor is having absolutely none of this shit.

REFERENCE TO PRUNEYARD, DRINK

"Our law doesn't regulate Etsy's ability to regulate the goods being sold! It just regulates the user generated content!" THE USER GENERATED CONTENT ARE THE LISTINGS OF THE GOODS BEING FUCKING SOLD, MOTHERFUCKER

(Other people are doing, like, serious livetweets and stuff. I'm just heckling.)

Roberts, dryly: "Is there any aspect of social media you think IS protected by the First Amendment?"

The motherfucker arguing for Moody did NOT just try to say that content moderation is the heckler's fucking veto

Content moderation is the SOLUTION to the fucking heckler's veto, motherfucker

Lawyer for Moody correctly spots that arguing with Roberts about a decision he authored is perhaps not the smartest tactical move

Citation to Tornillo, drink!

I really wish I were better at recognizing voices

Lawyer for Moody: "The consistency provision is really just a CONSUMER PROTECTION measure --" Kavanaugh: "...and could the goverment apply that to bookstores? Newspapers?"

(The government's argument that this is a contractual issue is absolutely a fucking figleaf for content and viewpoint regulation and no court in the country has bought the argument that they are selling yet.)

PRUNEYARD REFERENCE, DRINK

Jackson is still not entirely buying what the state is selling, but like her questioning in Gonzalez, she is really demonstrating a worrying frame that indicates she's willing to sell some First Amendment protection for the right price and I do not like that

Annnnnnnd there's the first "okay, so why doesn't section 230 totally preempt this law?"

Thomas: "But what *is* speech?" That's a paraphrase, but not by much.

PRUNEYARD REFERENCE, DRINK

(The reason I am keeping a running tally of the Pruneyard references is that Pruneyard is like literally the only case that's on the state's side, and it's been narrowed down by subsequent jurisprudence that literally everyone's attitude to it is "let's just ... agree not to talk about Pruneyard")

Alito: "Where in the record should I look to find a list of all the platforms that are covered by the statute?" State: "...well, Your Honor, there isn't a list..." Yeah, they just lost the case.

"Where in the record would I look to find a list of all the functions those platforms perform?" "I, uh, am not aware of anywhere in the record there is a list of that..." "Does your law cover any website that engage primarily in non-expressive conduct?" *long, long pause*

You can smell the flop sweat even through the livestream, Jesus.

When fucking Alito is trying to prod you into giving him ANY fucking material AT ALL to say that the statute isn't overbroad and you flopsweat out of it, you have lost

Sotomayor: "Let's take this as a given. You *can* argue with the facts, but don't." *entire gallery laughs*

Sotomayor: "How is this not a classic 1A violation for the state to come in and say you can't exercise these judgements, this editorial discretion?"

the "our opponents aren't bringing up overbreadth?" was an amazing bag fumble

that was quite a message to find flying by w/all the context collapsed

I logged into the livestream just in time to catch that exchange and I'm glad I was already on the can

IANAL **or** American, and I lol’d. That’s…quite the groundwork they haven’t laid there.

"We don't talk about Pruneyard, no no..." Sorry.

I am here for this

Ok, now that you've started this, I'm going to want the full song.

Post