News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by coldcode on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:53PM (#24792337)
Perhaps someone of a legal bent can explain what this means.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by wahern on Thursday October 15, 2020 @03:12PM (#24792572)
It means nothing. Thomas has a penchant for gratuitously giving his personal opinion when nobody is asking for it. If I had a nickel for every time Thomas wrote to suggest the court should pick up an ancillary issue in the future, and then proceeded to write his future opinion....

Sometimes I wish the court would pick up an issue. Many years ago Thomas wrote in a cert denial regarding developer exactions (i.e. making a developer pay for something as a price for project approval) that the court should find a [better] case to make clear the boundaries of unconstitutional exactions. But of course the court has yet to do that, and even if it did I have little reason to believe (unfortunately) the rest of the justices shared Thomas' disdain for exactions.

The same is likely true here: I doubt most of the other justices have a pressing desire to step into the middle of the Section 230 debate, and even if they did I doubt even more that they would share Thomas' peculiar interpretation of the law. Note that just because Thomas (or any justice) says that their interpretation is the obvious "plain text" meaning, that doesn't actually mean it is.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by vlovich123 on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:58PM (#24792407)
Not a lawyer, but lawfareblog coverage should be accessible no? (I'm reading it right now).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-se...

Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by engineer_22 on Thursday October 15, 2020 @03:09PM (#24792539)
Written by a college freshman.

Who says millennials are useless?

Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by InitialLastName on Thursday October 15, 2020 @03:22PM (#24792694)
FWIW, author is Gen Z, not a Millennial. The latest end birth I've seen for Millennials is 2000 (normally ~1996); as a rising freshman, author was most likely born in 2001-2003.

OT: Gen Z are about to show us what it really looks like when people spend their entire lives online. Be ready.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by jessaustin on Thursday October 15, 2020 @03:25PM (#24792720)
I, for one, would never say that. Unfortunately for millennials, they can't take credit for the work of Gen Z.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by drenvuk on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:57PM (#24792401)
it's only 10 pages, single column. you want someone else to filter what the judge is saying for you?
Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by brian_herman__ on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:59PM (#24792428)
Some people aren't as well versed in the law. Give the guy a break. Chill.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court warns of limitations to Section 230 pl... by drenvuk on Thursday October 15, 2020 @03:05PM (#24792498)
I am chill, it's just that it's not much reading and sounds like the guy didn't even make an attempt to skim through it and pick up a few things. It's lazy.