It is amazing how many legal professionals lack critical language and deductive skills - and completely missed the precedent set by this case. This was not a case-specific ruling.
Justice Alito concurs in his dissent:
“What the officials did in this case was more subtle than [ham-handed censorship] ...Officials who read today’s decision ...will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”
And the "enough sophistication" bar is very very low in this instance. As we had three parties with clear sets of communication to intend harm to specific parties. Avoiding this litmus is achievable by even the most obtuse of Party Member in the future.
And here is the kicker:
If this case is re-filed so that a clear chain of standing (not simply 'standing' alone) is established, that IS case specific. A victory for the Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri no longer serves to dispel the precedent the Court set here.
Even lawyers involved in the case itself did not comprehend the ethical question being answered here.
We are in trouble.
What the unskilled case presentation has done, is akin to 'overselling' in marketing parlance - by having your first product hyped too much and too far ahead of its skis, thereafter under-delivering, a company creates negative goodwill inside their brand.
This is why we have FaceBook and not MySpace.
The second mouse to the trap gets the cheese. But if the first mouse held the locus of human rights, and self-immolates, we have f---ked up for everyone involved.
This is why a strategy is essential in a critical path of prosecution. Not simply a bundle of correct legal principles.
A white crow or dead body observation forces us to introduce a novel paradigm. Thereafter, does that novel paradigm bear elegance, along with greater explanatory and probative power than did the old one.
Skepticism does not mean 'never undertake the risk of proposing a hypothesis'.
The whole mission of ethical skepticism is to dispel this Mind Trick that skepticism is 'doubting everything' (until you are just a Narrative Sponge). Because they never teach you to doubt the Narrative, only new ideas.
I was silent in the vehicle on the way back to the hotel in Cairo. My stomach hung like lead. My colleagues with me on that second trip to Giza nudged: "TES, you OK? You're awfully quiet."
Once seen, this cannot be unseen.
And perhaps this is the culmination of decades of Officer of the Deck and Captain seamanship, along with having headed a materials research corporation
...nonetheless, it was staring us in the face all this time.
It helps to actually read my hypothesis before commenting...
With large language models, our formal publication, speech, and deliverables stand to converge into a stifling uniformity in banal expression - while in contrast our casual communication degrades into a brutish and trite Huxlean nightmare.
Each expression a flawless manifestation of syntax, agreement, and punctuation—a pseudo-product of a vacant and distracted mind, instructed on what and how to think.
A tiger confined to a cage for an extended period, its existence reduced to nothing but a vacant gaze, devoid of the vitality and spirit that once defined its wild nature.