Mastodawn

Mike Masnick 1d ago

I regret that I actually understand what Trump is babbling about. He's claiming that birthright citizenship promise of the 14th amendment was ONLY supposed to apply to the babies of slaves born in the US. The "same year" is about it applying to people when 14A happened. He's also completely wrong.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:3bqvbzpwgi5mqeqs6qlym26j/post/3lslvs35tc22z

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

Chris Geidner 1d ago

BREAKING: Supreme Court, 6-3, upholds Texas's age-verification internet law. Thomas, for the court, affirms the Fifth Circuit's opinion, holding that the law is subject to and survives intermediate scrutiny review.

Laffy 1d ago

#SCOTUS 5

Stern:

The Supreme Court's fifth decision is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. By a 6–3 vote, the court UPHOLDS age-verification laws for online porn, holding that they are only subject to intermediate scrutiny. All three liberals dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

Ned Resnikoff 1d ago

Again, it is just straightforwardly the case right now that the U.S. Constitution is no longer in effect. That isn't hyperbole. If the legislative branch and the judiciary sit idly by while the president flagrantly violates the Constitution, I'm not sure how else you'd describe it.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:nvfposmpmhegtyvhbs75s3pw/post/3lslusv366l2f

T. Greg Doucette 1d ago

And with the citizenship order in particular, coupled with the other immigration rulings, Trump can quickly deport anyone he deems not a citizen to any third country of his choosing, preventing those lawsuits from being filed It's yet another rubber stamp for autocracy

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:obqunmbc6uydprnnioo42ry2/post/3lslt54i7hk2m

Mary Austin VOTED 4 HARRIS!1d ago

Facts.

Being “for free speech” means 1) not supporting state censorship of any books, newspapers, or stations because we disagree with the viewpoints on them, including blasphemy. 2) supporting the rights of private bookstores, networks, playoffs, & publishers not to carry “lawful but awful” speech.

Chris Geidner 1d ago

BREAKING: Supreme Court, 6-3, limits nationwide injunctions in cases challenging Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, staying injunctions where "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to those challenging the orders. Lower courts are to decide how that is done. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

Steve Vladeck 1d ago

Super-quick take while reading the ruling: This is going to be a much bigger deal for challenges to *other* Trump policies than to birthright citizenship (where it's likely that lower courts will still be able to block the policy on a nationwide basis even after this ruling). *That's* the import.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/post/3lslsp5h3s22j

Joshua J. Friedman 1d ago

Lander: "It's just gross, racist bigotry. Meanwhile he's running an optimistic, upbeat campaign for a NY where everybody belongs, and I feel proud as the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in NYC to be supporting somebody who would be the first Muslim mayor—what could be more NYC than that?"

I would welcome thoughts on @rokhanna.bsky.social’s argument on free speech from @mmasnick.bsky.social & @kenwhite.bsky.social & you all, because I’d like my own speech about this matter to stand up to the toughest scrutiny possible after challenging the apparent flaws in the Congressman position.

Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social)

A vision for a new economic patriotism. Let’s invent it, make it, & buy it in America. Pro-worker, pro-union, pro-family. Text me: (650) 999-9610

Bluesky Social

Being “for free speech” means supporting Rep Ogles’ right to tweet Islamophobic claims & false smears, while opposing his abuses of power in using his official U.S. government account & office to call on DoJ to denaturalize & deport a citizen for speech Ogles that dislikes. Right, @khanna.house.gov?

For the record: 1) @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social is not anti-Semitic 2) democratic socialism isn’t Communism. (Go visit Sweden.) 3) Using state power to target citizens because of their speech sure looks like a clear violation of First Amendment rights based on viewpoint discrimination to me!

Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social)

NYS Assemblymember for District 36. Running for Mayor to freeze the rent, make buses fast + free, and deliver free universal childcare. Democratic Socialist. zohranfornyc.com

Bluesky Social

4) Calls to denaturalize & deport your political enemies over their expression is as pure an example of totalitarianism as you’ll see in the USA or world today. 5) Every elected leader should affirm the patriotism and rights of Muslim-Americans given the overt bigotry we are seeing right now.

In a healthy House, Speaker Johnson would support censure of Rep. Ogles & any Member of any party who seeks to strip an American of citizenship because they don’t like what we say. That’s what I believe “supporting free speech” means, in a free country. Do you, @rokhanna.bsky.social ?

Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social)

A vision for a new economic patriotism. Let’s invent it, make it, & buy it in America. Pro-worker, pro-union, pro-family. Text me: (650) 999-9610

Bluesky Social

Correction: In my 1st skeet, I wrote that being “for free speech" means supporting the rights of “private playoffs” not to carry "lawful but awful" speech. I meant to write that compelling private platforms to carry speech may violate their First Amendment rights, in the USA. I regret the error.

Jeremiah C. Foster 🇸🇪🇺🇸1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social Sweden is not a Communist country. The government formation is a Constitutional Monarchy. The have a Parliament with democratically elected representatives.

John Doe 1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social Sidebar, people can absolutely still get Rowlings books at the Public Library.

deskJet95 1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social I don't know if it's that simple. De jure private spaces are de facto public squares. The most famous example of this, of course, is Twitter. What is a legal choice can still become de facto censorship, depending on the number of book stores that decide to carry or not carry a book.

I don't entirely disagree with your point. FDR's administration censored Father Coughlin because of his political views. It was necessary, arguably, but there is a slippery slope.

H🏳️‍🌈NK 1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social
They're forgetting economics. There's a boycott. Why would a store be obligated to carry old books they know won't sell and may lose them even more business just for having in stock?

Joel Truher 1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social I generally like Khanna but I agree he gets this one wrong. It seems common among well-meaning people to conflate the 1st amendment (about state censorship) and the Civil Rights Act (about public accommodation). If a bookstore wants to sell JK Rowling, they should be shunned by the public but ignored by the government.

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.1d ago

@digiphile.bsky.social I don't think it's really that simple any more. People _experience_ many private networks as if they were public utilities. In fact some of those private networks advertise themselves as if they were public spaces.

If any mention of m4m romance was excluded from Twitter / BlueSky, I think that would be sufficiently exclusionary to be unjust, wither current legalities.

How people experience things and feel about them may be distinguished from facts and law between reasonable folks, correct? I imagine you are aware of the ways feelings may trump reality these days.