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 brightlancer on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:03PM (#36623007)
Judicial opinions != Personal opinions

It ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same freakin' sport.

Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by nobody9999 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:46PM (#36623543)
>Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

Actually, they can[0] be. In fact, I use sea sponges as dish sponges every single day.

[0] https://www.naturalbathbody.com/natural-sea-sponges/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by npunt on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:06PM (#36626566)
Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by evandale on Sunday July 09, 2023 @01:22PM (#36656452)
Doesn't seem that cheeky from where I'm standing.

You admitted a judicial opinion is different from a personal opinion and you're making fun of my definition of a personal opinion? But you acknowledge a judicial opinion is different than a person opinion?

Why can't you extend that to a corporation? The "opinion" of a corporation or a judge is NOT the same as a personal opinion and there is a distinction that can/should be made. I'm not sure why you can agree with someone else that a judicial opinion is different than a personal opinion but when I say "not people opinions" are different from "people opinions" I'm wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]