.@steve_vladeck At the end of the day, the courts might agree with you, but here’s a credible argument by serious thinkers that Big Tech—by directly implementing govt policy, at the express behest of govt decision-makers—have become de facto state actors:
wsj.com/articles/save-…
wsj.com/articles/save-…
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1412800983676198913
2/x @steve_vladeck you can do better than that. You’re a respected law prof. But so’s Rubenfeld.
You might be right that Norwood (1973) and Hanson (1956) and Skinner (1989) and Bantam Books (1963) may be found not to apply—but you can’t credibly pretend they don’t exist.
You might be right that Norwood (1973) and Hanson (1956) and Skinner (1989) and Bantam Books (1963) may be found not to apply—but you can’t credibly pretend they don’t exist.
3/x When a monopoly becomes the enforcement arm of govt censorship, it is very much state action.
This is a point I’ve made publicly before:
foxnews.com/politics/sen-c…
This is a point I’ve made publicly before:
foxnews.com/politics/sen-c…
4/x When multiple elected Dems call on Big Tech to censor their political opposition—& threaten govt retribution if they do not—there’s a credible constitutional arg that becomes state action.
Likewise, when Fauci—in writing—asks FB to censor speech contrary to govt position.
Likewise, when Fauci—in writing—asks FB to censor speech contrary to govt position.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
