Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   James Grimmelmann (jtlg@mastodon.lawprofs.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Feb-2024 09:45:30 JST James Grimmelmann

   Jackson: Doesn't speak to a business decision not to offer services in Texas. But once you offer service there, you can't discriminate against Texans.

   A: Yes.

   • Embed this notice
     James Grimmelmann (jtlg@mastodon.lawprofs.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Feb-2024 09:45:27 JST James Grimmelmann

     in reply to

     My immediate takeaway is that the court is likely to look for a narrow ruling that rejects both sides' categorial rules. I think core antidiscrimination provisions of the FL and TX laws will fail under that narrow ruling, possibly immediately, possibly on remand. There may be dueling opinions taking issue on the procedural questions.

   • Embed this notice
     James Grimmelmann (jtlg@mastodon.lawprofs.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Feb-2024 09:45:28 JST James Grimmelmann

     in reply to

     (4) There is a proud tradition of facial challenges to vindiate 1A rights and getting PIs against laws chilling speech. The party presentation laws have to be foundational. They could have objected to our facial challenge by pointing to Gmail. We could have litigated it. It's not the P's burden to come up with every theory the government could imagine on appeal.

     Joe Ortiz repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     James Grimmelmann (jtlg@mastodon.lawprofs.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Feb-2024 09:45:29 JST James Grimmelmann

     in reply to

     Clement up for rebuttal:

     (1) Common carriage are (a) transmitted message from A to B, but dissemination is the expressive enterprise business, and (b) essential facilities, if you were kicked off Ma Bell you're out of luck.

     (2) No other law discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and applies exclusively to speakers.

     (3) Protecting kids. If you're concerned about it, vote for us. If we can't viewpoint discriminate we can't downrank and remove suicide promotion.