The real world is not like physics, where you can describe things with an equation and they pretty much hold up absolutely.

There is always an edge case, a grey area, a situation where you have to use your judgment.

Also "There's no carve out for "a really good reason"" is simply incorrect. Fraud? Child pornography?

What about if you put the wrong ingredients on your food product and it kills someone with an allergy?

You're confusing a prohibiton on speech with behavior you can get in trouble for.

Let's say you put out a fraudulant ad selling a bridge. You can be sued, the FTC can sue you, and there could (unlikely) be jail time for you.

What the Government can't do is say you're prohibited to take out an ad until they approve it - which is exactly what happened with covid. The Whitehouse abused it's power to prohibit speech being made - it didn't sue someone for eg selling a false cure.

Part of the problem is the process. When I sue you for fraud, we go in front of a judge. I have to prove you're engaged in fraud - the burden is on me. If we prevent any unapproved ad from being posted by Government power, there is no due process and the burden of proof shifts to you that you aren't breaking the law. That's not how our justice system works.

Really? What was the mechanism by which this was enforced that was fundamentally different from, say, the police coming to someone's house and arresting them for the possession of child pornography?

The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one.

Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the government feels is CSAM. The material has to actually be exploitative of children and for obscene purposes, it can't be a medical photo or a Nirvana album cover.

Do you really not see a difference between a probibition on any speech not preapproved by the Whitehouse versus charging people for CSAM posession?

This wasn't the Whitehouse post-hoc suing someone for hawking false covid cures. This was the Whitehouse saying unapproved messages could not be even discussed by private citizens on platforms.

> The ability to go in front of a judge

We're commenting on the judgment. Made by judges.

I'm going to stop responding here, this strategy of basing arguments in imagined alternative worlds of facts is not interesting.

This only went in front of a judge because the Whitehouse was sued by Missouri and Louisiana.

The Whitehouse is a defendant, not a plaintiff.

None of the people censored have standing or were able to go in front of the judge.