Comment by akerl_
9 hours ago
This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner.
The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
Most modern social media is the latter, but for trash and propaganda, rather than sex. So why doesn't the court apply the same rule that it's okay to check IDs on entry?
I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
Laws which are open to abuse are bad laws. Full stop.
The world is very complex. It's effectively impossible to write laws on most topics that perfectly capture all nuance. Which is why we have a judicial system that can look at a law and a situation and say "nope, this law (or this usage of a law) is incorrect". Which is what's happened here, where the court issued an injunction on enforcement of the Texas law.
Bookstores that carry porn are porn shops. Apps that carry porn are porn shops, and since the app store has apps that carry porn, the app store is a porn shop.
Can you back that up? Basically nowhere else I'm aware of do we draw that kind of expansive categorization. A gas station isn't a book store if they have one rack of books next to all the snacks. A book store isn't an electronics shop if they have a rack of e-readers.
Now apply that logic to the whole of the internet..
You might arrive at an old saying, about what the internet is for.
ICYMI Kavanaugh endorsed arresting people because they look brown so I'm not sure why we're putting any faith in the court system.