U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by joshuamorton on Sunday September 18, 2022 @08:14AM (#32886896)

This is a non sequitur. It is legal to repeal section 230. It would be bad, but it is legal. But in either case, the law under discussion is unconstitutional. And it'd be doubly unconstitutional if you're claiming that the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by leereeves on Sunday September 18, 2022 @10:00AM (#32887618)

Every time you use the word "unconstitutional", it should be prefaced by "IMO".

> the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause.

How many states have made marijuana legal despite federal law?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by joshuamorton on Sunday September 18, 2022 @05:28PM (#32891655)

There is nothing stopping the federal government from arresting me, in California, for marijuana related crimes. And it regularly does (trafficking), because federal law supersedes state law.

The federal government choosing not to for most cases, and choosing to functionally defer to the states does not affect what it is allowed to do.

And there is a difference between making something illegal and making something legal. Once the federal govt says something is legal, supremacy prevents states from making it illegal (remember the Republican talking point about how the Dems could pass a national abortion legalization law? That works because of the supremacy clause).

Like it's really clear at this point you know basically nothing about how the us legal system works. Because you keep bringing up these things that just are not relevant. And I don't really want to teach you.

[ Parent | on HN ]