Discussion

• @cohenss Sam Cohen on x

  I love how they use modern developments arguments when it suits and not, say, for modern developments in firearms https://twitter.com/...

• @baldingsworld @baldingsworld on x

  I believe it would be deeply misguided to change the speech laws in the United States. It is more than ironic however that Journos who want to censor others are now concerned about maintaining free speech https://twitter.com/...

• @pattmlatimes Patt Morrison on x

  Signals like this prove we are well past the genteel alarms about the country having taken “the first step toward undermining democracy.” https://twitter.com/...

• @mjs_dc Mark Joseph Stern on x

  By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court refuses to hear Arlene's Flowers, which involves a florist who refused to serve same-sex couples. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... https://twitter.com/...

• @theviewfromll2 Susan Simpson on x

  Sounds like Justice Thomas wants to make it possible for his conspiracy-theory-spreading wife to be held liable for defamation. https://twitter.com/...

• @boutrousted Ted Boutrous on x

  This string cite from Justice Gorsuch omits the Supreme Court's unanimous 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice Scalia, ringingly endorsing and expanding on New York Times v. Sullivan. https://twitter.com/...

• @bobcesca_go Bob Cesca on x

  This is pornography for every Red Hat who's exploiting SLAPP suits to cancel liberals who are mean to them. You know, because Red Hats hate cancel culture and cherish free speech.🙄 https://twitter.com/...

• @sababausa @sababausa on x

  Gorsuch's remarks are especially rich since the “original public meaning” of the First Amendment c.1789 was *incredibly speech restrictive* by today's standards, and Gorsuch voted yesterday to uphold a 1A right of billionaires to donate anonymously https://twitter.com/...

• @philldkline Phillip Kline on x

  SCOTUS decision today supports Amistad's theory that Zuckerberg's millions spent to benefit Biden by violating equal protection and treating voters differently (disparate impact). We will press forward on our lawsuits!

• @popehat SchemeToDefraudHat on x

  Two justices suggesting a second look at Sullivan goes from Thomas-is-a-weirdo to this-starts-to-be-concerning https://twitter.com/...

• @ajitpai Ajit Pai on x

  Justice Gorsuch on NYT v. Sullivan: “It seems that publishing without investigation, fact-checking, or editing has become the optimal legal strategy. Under the actual malice regime as it has evolved, ‘ignorance is bliss’” (later citing then-Prof. Kagan). https://www.supremecourt.…

• @adamsteinbaugh Adam Steinbaugh on x

  If others join, this would gut the most important free speech protection in the United States: the right to get things wrong about the powerful. https://twitter.com/...

• @markos Markos Moulitsas on x

  This would allow @HillaryClinton to bankrupt every single conservative that has profited from lies about her. Conservatives should tread carefully. https://twitter.com/...

• @cathygellis Cathy Gellis on x

  This is frightening. But I note how similar it sounds to much of the anti-230 rhetoric. “Sure it made sense to protect expression THEN, but surely it's not necessary to keep protecting it NOW.” It NEVER stops being important to protect fundamental liberties. https://twitter.com/.…

• @mmasnick Mike Masnick on x

  Well, this is only moderately terrifying. That's now two wealthy elite Supreme Court Justices indicating we should overturn decades of bedrock 1st Amendment precedent... to make it easier for wealthy elites to sue their critics. https://twitter.com/...