News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”. Parent comment

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by staticman2 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:05PM (#36621146)
"From a constitutional perspective (which is the perspective Supreme Court Justices swear to have), the ability of the government to limit speech is not allowed. Full stop. Sources below."

The Supreme court has never said anything like what you just typed in 200+ years of american history. Do you type this every day, constantly knashing you teeth at the existence of trade secret laws, copyright laws, libel laws, and the like, or does the rheteric come out in service of special goals?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by tdehnel on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:49PM (#36623576)
Wow what a jerk. I'm going off the Constitutional Oath, which all judges take. Obviously they use judicial discretion but be charitable for a second and at least try to understand my point, which is that deviating from what the Constitution says is the very rare exception, not the rule.
[ Parent | on HN ]