It IS telling that the majority of SM items requested for restriction came from conservatives/reactionaries. It shows how many crackpot conspiracies that wing of politics openly embraces; not just at the fringes but presumably the very heart of it.
This decision is the codifying of both-sidesism on the judiciary. The platforms were asked …
It IS telling that the majority of SM items requested for restriction came from conservatives/reactionaries. It shows how many crackpot conspiracies that wing of politics openly embraces; not just at the fringes but presumably the very heart of it.
This decision is the codifying of both-sidesism on the judiciary. The platforms were asked to restrict baseless, unhinged claims being presented as verified facts. Many of those claims emboldened attacks on public officials and law enforcement. If those on the left were pushing dangerously unhinged claims as fact, and it compromised this judge, or some other right-wing person's safety, would he claim that allowing it was proper because of 1A? Doubtful.
It IS telling that the majority of SM items requested for restriction came from conservatives/reactionaries. It shows how many crackpot conspiracies that wing of politics openly embraces; not just at the fringes but presumably the very heart of it.
This decision is the codifying of both-sidesism on the judiciary. The platforms were asked to restrict baseless, unhinged claims being presented as verified facts. Many of those claims emboldened attacks on public officials and law enforcement. If those on the left were pushing dangerously unhinged claims as fact, and it compromised this judge, or some other right-wing person's safety, would he claim that allowing it was proper because of 1A? Doubtful.