Replies to post #217357 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Homebrew]

I'm sure the Supreme Court will be eager to take up a case about putting a clown face "reaction" on a post. 🤣😂🤪
🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

[IH Geek [Dave]]

S-230 is favorite ball to get kicked around politically but there haven't been any changes since the disastrous FOSTA legislation was enacted.

Murthy (i.e., the Administration) was just butthurt and issued that opinion after having to defend the government's suppression of protected speech in the Supreme Court after several states and some individuals sued him and other Administration officials for 1A violations. The Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing, and remanded to the lower courts to develop a more narrow case where standing exists if they want to try and do so. The plaintiffs threw everything at the wall, and there was a lot of material to throw, but the Court understandably found that it wasn't their job to weed through all of it. It will almost certainly return to the high court eventually, especially if the government keeps up its efforts (and they will) to suppress constitutionally protected speech that they want to characterize as "misinformation" or "disinformation." To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it's 1984 all over again.