“The Court finds that the First Amendment claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits because Google and YouTube are not state actors,” wrote Judge Trina Thompson, who was nominated to serve on the Court by Joe Biden in 2021, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2022.
“Second, Plaintiff was not, and will not, be irreparably harmed if a temporary restraining order is not issued because he does not demonstrate urgency or that he will not be able to share his videos through other sites and methods.”
Here is where it gets really bad.
In the ruling, Judge Thompson also argued that even if Kennedy could establish that YouTube is a state actor, the First Amendment does not necessarily protect “medical misinformation.”
Citing previous cases that recognized a public interest consideration in First Amendment cases, Thompson wrote “the coronavirus still poses a health risk to certain individuals, and it would not serve the public interest to let medical misinformation proliferate on YouTube.”
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.
Here is where it gets really bad.
Astonishing.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
fuck DC, fuck California, and fuck fed jannies
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.