Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by eduction on Saturday September 17, 2022 @09:25PM
(#32883461)
I appreciate the answer. Interesting. My read on that section was that it was all around specifically the request for immediate preliminary relief (to stay the state law basically?) — this was from section IV right? - and in that section the “hypothetical enforcement” was, in my reading, pretty clearly referring to what the tech companies were arguing the state would do to enforce the law, and the court seemed to be saying, you haven’t established that the enforcement mechanism will be onerous because it’s yet to be seen how this will be enforced - your concerns about enforcement are hypothetical.
But IANAL and had to read through it pretty fast.
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by catiopatio on Saturday September 17, 2022 @09:20PM
(#32883434)
“Hypothetical”, in this legal context, is used to describe an assumption of facts to be used to test a logical proposition or legal consequences under those assumed facts.
The judge’s use of the term “hypothetical” was correct, and does not represent an assertion, one way or the other, about whether “pro-Nazi and terrorist speech” does or does not exist on these platforms.
For example, just look at the section where the opinion argues that the platform is bringing up "hypotheticals" it talking about curbing pro-Nazi or terrorist posts. I kept re-reading the quoted opinion again and again thinking "Is this judge a complete idiot?" To be clear, I'm not basing this on the commentary from the article's author (though I agree with him). But trying to argue that pro-Nazi and terrorist speech on tech platforms are "hypotheticals" makes me wonder if this judge has ever seen the Internet.