Can Elmo Promise The Quality Of Argument Is Going To Improve?

Odd. I don’t recall saying that. Was I drunk? Because I don’t know what “substantive First amendment speech” means. Also, clearly insulting journalists using their own words would be protected by the First Amendment. Is it possible you don’t understand the state action doctrine?

— BelovedAnonymousHat (@Popehat) October 28, 2022

Because, yes, the argument raised about the state action doctrine…oh wait, that’s coming up here:

Ah, I see. So you don’t understand the state action doctrine.

— BelovedAnonymousHat (@Popehat) October 28, 2022

Dammit, not yet there, either!

First off, the State Action Doctrine is one of the most disputed areas of law, up to any number of people saying SCOTUS got it completely wrong. I know you know this.

Second - yes, yes they did. At which point... go ahead, fill in the blanks.

— P.M. Phillips (@S1AL) October 28, 2022

There! "Most disputed areas of law”? By lawyers? Law professors? Judges? Or is he confusing “disputed” with “recently discussed? Because I’d never heard of it, and I understand it’s of very recent vintage. And the biggest dispute is whether it’s really stupid or the stupidest idea any lawyer has ever heard of.

But what gets my attention is how “Twitter’s substantive defense of actual First Amendment rights” becomes “ ‘substantive first amendment’ speech.” Which, as Popehat says, is not a thing. I mean, there’s isn’t any speech (or print) that escapes (or acquires) First Amendment protection because it is not (or us) “substantive.”

So, will Twitter do something about this level of stupidity? Or would that be conspiring to suppress free speech (legislative action by definition may be unwise, but can never be conspiratorial).