After writing about Utah's laughable "promise" to sue social media for being harmful to kids, I was reminded that 3 weeks ago, Seattle's public schools actually did sue all the big social media platforms claiming they're a "public nuisance." As I write, this is the Seattle school district's admission that they are unfit to be teaching children.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/25/seattle-school-district-files-laughably-stupid-lawsuit-against-basically-every-social-media-company-for-being-a-public-nuisance/

Seattle School District Files Laughably Stupid Lawsuit Against Basically Every Social Media Company For… ‘Being A Public Nuisance’

I just wrote about Utah’s ridiculously silly plans to sue every social media company for being dangerous to children, in which I pointed out that the actual research doesn’t support the…

Techdirt
@mmasnick Lemmon v. Snap is quickly becoming to Section 230 what Pruneyard v. Robins is to the First Amendment. I can already see that section of the school district’s opposition brief in my mind’s eye.

@DanLifschitzEsq @mmasnick Oh no...

But Pruneyard I could actually see some merit to. Not Lemmon v. Snap though.

@cathygellis @mmasnick Oh sure, I was less referring to the merits of each case as I was vexatious litigants’ eagerness to haphazardly weaponize them. Been “censored” on social media? Pruneyard town square argument! Just mad at social media generally? Lemmon defective design argument! Both equally designed to give @ericgoldman pounding migraines.
@DanLifschitzEsq @mmasnick @ericgoldman Those migraines are contagious...
@cathygellis @DanLifschitzEsq @mmasnick @ericgoldman PruneYard, oy vey. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen it *properly* cited (where the affirmative right of free speech as in CA’s constitution is apposite) vs. just a fancier sounding grunt of “But, but… free speech!” [on private property owned & maintained by others at their expense]. 🙄