In theory I like the idea of judicial conservatism; not attempting to change the law and merely interpreting it. But in practice that seems to be applied in ideologically narrow ways.
BTW, the many on "the right", particularly Randy Barnett, have long argued in favor of judicial activism in the service of his preferred philosophy, original public meaning. He doesn't fault the other side for activism, but for actively pursuing a philosophy he disagrees with, living constitutionalism.
It all depends on exactly what you're applying "activism" and "restraint" to. Barnett would argue for restraint in reading Section 230 as creating more authority than its text supports, but activism in applying such restraint.
Indeed! And there's some real legerdemain going on by the author related to that "indemnity."
He brings up traditional cultural ideas around an open and free internet, and he then argues that opponents of Section 230 are against the spirit of the internet. But this is only the case if you believe the spirit of the internet was 3rd party indemnity, and that's what made it grow. (A cynical position to hold in my opinion.)
If you believe that the internet is what it is due to openness, then it's people like Twitter and Facebook that have got it all wrong. They're effectively saying "we don't want to be held responsible for content on our platform" (e.g. bear the costs of editorial oversight), and simultaneously "we also don't want to be held responsible for content we take off our platform" (done so voluntary with the same cost burdens they're fighting against).
It's a weird type of Internet Provider Exceptionalism: "The Internet is great because the providers were free to do whatever they wanted."
If the court were a strictly rational, non-ideological body, politicians wouldn't fight over appointments the way they do.
Scalia didn't write judicial activism. Nothing he ever wrote was judicial activism. "legislate from the bench?" Come on now. If you like the first amendment, the second exists to protect it. If you don't believe the second amendment exists (and that the opinion you've just stated), then the first doesn't either. The second amendment is the second most strict language in the entire Constitution. "Shall make no law", and "shall not be infringed".
You should read Heller -- you clearly have not. He carefully documented all of your arguments and destroyed them. Heller is one of the very few decisions that's come from the bench in the last 60 years that actually strictly respected the exact words of the Constitution for exactly what they said.
Your politics are showing through. It's okay, you're not a judge and won't be.
I don't read "NRA Pamphlets", I read Heller numerous times. I've studied just about everything that's been written on the 2nd Amendment.
Dred Scott removed rights from people. Heller applied the document as it was meant to be, enforcing the Constitution.