Yes captain pedantic, you are right in an absolute since but I think we all know John M Ct was referencing court decisions where malicious use of "yelling fire in a crowded room" when there is no fire is not protected speech. Or at least the rest of us knew...

https://backtothethames.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/a-godels-incompleteness-theorem-for-the-law/

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem states: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."

A more generalized extrapolation of Gödel’s theorem states is that for any written constitutional legal system there are propositions that are deemed true, but cannot be proved from the axioms contained within the written constitution. No amount of amending can change this situation.

The opinions of the Supreme Court are often just opinions. Some more reasoned than others, but still opinions.

Contrary to popular opinion, you cannot legally forbid "yelling fire in a crowded room", that's ridiculous. Sometime crowded rooms catch on fire.

And I see no parallels whatsoever between railroads, which often function as 'necessary monopolies' (same as electric power companies), and social media companies that function as public billboards, and for which there is no economic justification for being considered as monopolies, when everybody has the right to create his own public billfoards.

might as well replace every incidence of "floridian" or "florida resident" with the guy this text is actually referring to.

if only CW would allow pie to have some media coverage, these problems could be solved.

JL

The distinction I remember from my other example was that in free speech law, simple speech of opinion is different from speech of incitement to immediate and harmful actions. But Holmes may not have been on board there.

Now interestingly, the way it is written, makes me want to see a "lib" candidate get banned from Parler, Daily Caller, or any number of other right wing media rooms, and let's not forget the festering romper rooms on Discus, or Telegram....

Too bad they tend to be insurrection and violence leading to death adverse.

Here is the text for the bill.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s7072er.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=7072&Session=2021

As my kid watches Hamilton for the umpteenth time and I look up the history all the main characters, I wonder if what we are experiencing now is the real America. We hold the post war period as the American ideal, early part for conservatives, later for the liberals, but this period may be the aberration rather than the norm...

"i cannot tell a lie, these cherries are for pie."

clearly you just don't have the cherries to do what is right and publicly come out in support of pie. for shame.

get edible.

Not knowing exactly where you're going with your connection between the First Amendment's free speech and free press, and Florida's imposition of legal limits on Facebook's freedom, I will note one thing that might make a difference:

Everything has limits. There are no unlimited rights. Famously, one cannot yell 'fire!' in a crowded room; less famously but more relevantly, one cannot tell a crowd of angry people, 'let's go bust the door down and hang the son of a bitch!'. Ditto with the free press - there are libel laws restricting telling untruths about people that would harm those people.

Now, the Florida law is not exactly about those cases. But what I'm thinking of is the doctrine that private enterprise is not entirely free, either. When it is large enough and important enough in a matter of how people live their daily lives - think railroads, think telephone companies, think food producers - the government has the ability to regulate the hell out of them in the name of the public good, or public safety, or public decency.

Between the long-established limits on what a free press can say or not say, and the long-established limits on what a private company can do when its actions affect a large number of citizens' daily lives, it is at least arguable that Facebook and the gang are in for their comeuppance.

Not necessarily from this Florida law and its buddies being prepared in other GOP-dominated states; this law is entirely too specific (we don't mean Disney!) and too clumsily written, from what I see in the papers today. But a better law could be written, and may be written as soon as the Supremes give some guidance as to what they'll accept, relevant to Florida's effort here.

As a Facebook exec is reported to have said about a proposal that they actually read and censor everything posted on their platform or accept legal liability for it, "but that would destroy our entire business model!" Uh-huh. Suck it, child - here are some 19th century railroad execs you might like to cry on the shoulders of.