The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

from the must-we-always-relive-the-past? dept

Fri, Sep 2nd 2022 09:40am – Mike Masnick

In July of 1995, Time Magazine published one of its most regrettable stories ever. The cover just read “CYBERPORN” with the subhead reading: “EXCLUSIVE A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kidsand free speech?” The author of that piece, Philip Elmer-Dewitt later admitted that it was his “worst” story “by far.”

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

Previously:

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?

New York Democrat introduces new social media censorship bill

The bill aims to curb people’s speech by targeting platforms By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2021

If a state senator got his way, the state of New York could soon get a new law aimed at regulating what content can appear on social media. The bill is designed to circumvent existing federal-level solutions in some instances and is reportedly inspired by internal documents leaked by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen.

New York Democrat introduces new social media censorship bill

Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It’s Time To Rethink

Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It’s Time To Rethink

Related:

Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation

Long time Techdirt readers will already be screaming about this. This claim is not just wrong, it’s very, very ignorant about the 1st Amendment. The “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” line was a throwaway line in an opinion by Justice Holmes that was actually about jailing someone for handing out anti-war pamphlets. It was never actually standard for 1st Amendment jurisprudence, and was effectively overturned in later cases, meaning it is not an accurate statement of law.