For the eleventy billionth time, deciding what speech you want to carry and what speech you want to exclude is an *exercise* of the First Amendment—not a violation of it—and “amending Section 230” won’t alter that reality, because the First Amendment itself protects that right.
Their angle is that while Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other behemoths can afford the compliance costs of Section 230 reform, their would-be competitors can’t. Regulating the competition out of business is a tactic as old as time.
We can always have this unhinged lunatic again.
Mark Zuckerberg was about 12 years old when Section 230 passed, and the only thing recognizable as “social media” at the time was *maybe* AOL instant messenger, ya dummy.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daniel A. Horwitz

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danielahorwitz

25 May
I should note: The problem here is not retroactivity. The Board of Parole just needs to use its uncontroversial, existing authority to give new hearing dates to anyone who is presumptively entitled to release under this new law, which they refuse to do.
To illustrate by example: There are people who will become presumptively entitled to release in July 2021. Many of those people won't be given a parole hearing until 2022 or beyond, though, which means they won't be released for years. That's a BOP choice.
Read 4 tweets
20 May
Ok folks, let’s talk about constitutional litigation for a second, since some of you are pretty confused about it.…
To begin, while the vast majority of laws are presumed (and are) constitutional, that presumption flips—dramatically—in certain contexts. Generally speaking, compelling people to say things that they don’t want to say is one of those contexts.
It’s that flipped presumption—where the Government has to meet the burden of proving that a law is constitutional—that leads to cases like this:…
Read 22 tweets
19 May
How would you feel if your jurisdiction passed a law compelling you to post your policy on misunderstanding the compelled speech doctrine?
Of course I have an answer to this extremely easy question, which was lower in the thread, but if you want more than that you can pay my retainer.
Good thing for plaintiffs that the relevant standard isn't "whether @AaronWorthing sees a viewpoint being compelled," then.
Read 4 tweets
18 May
Are you a business owner with bathrooms who doesn’t want to do this? If so, please feel free to reach out.
Here’s the text, btw, for anyone who has only seen the reporting on the bill but not the bill itself:…
Let me also just note that the definition of “restroom” is, uh, rather broad:
Read 10 tweets
7 May
This tweet belongs in a museum.
Make sure you get the “Twitter for iPhone” part in, it completes the triple crown.
Relatedly, for anyone who missed it earlier this week, I injured myself laughing at this clip:
Read 4 tweets
6 May
It’s my understanding that this is the final text of the new Chancery “super court.” Unless I’m missing something, this is not that big a deal? It’s largely purposeless, sure, but this is a pretty modest change, particularly compared with what was initially proposed.
The folks who pushed this are going to be *shocked* to learn that the problem with their laughably unconstitutional shit was not, in fact, the county where suit is filed.
Relatedly (and I don’t have a great way to verify this), I would be pretty surprised to learn that more than a handful qualifying cases are filed each year. So I guess the 5-10 of us who file these kinds of cases regularly will get our own little special panel thing.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!