Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped First Amendment on Social Media

Re:Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped First Amendme... by cowpig on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:43PM (#37448843)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped First Amendme... by vorpalhex on Saturday September 09, 2023 @05:44PM (#37450603)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped First Amendme... by cowpig on Sunday September 10, 2023 @07:22AM (#37454821)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped First Amendme... by vorpalhex on Sunday September 10, 2023 @09:43AM (#37455705)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]