[flagged]
I read the decision. Did you read my comment?
Your citation is correct, but you're ignoring the parts where the appeals court disagrees with the trial court. In short, the trial court wildly overshot the mark. The actual violation as found by the appeals court is much more modest.
My opinion is that even this version goes too far and will be overturned as well. "Significant encouragement" is likely protected speech and does not constitute a violation.
You stated that “The appeals ruling, therefore, is being interpreted here (and, in many cases, intentionally spun) in a way exactly opposite to what it actually found”, but that’s literally what you’re doing — blatantly in bad faith, contrary to the headline, the article in a major newspaper, and the actual decision itself.
My opinion is that you’re one of these pro-censorship people and are trying to spin how horrible and illegal the courts are saying this conduct is.
This appeals court decision barely supported any of the overreach of the trial judge; and as a well-known super-conservative circuit, they're using the opportunity to grind their own political axe by paying homage to the current Fox News-promoted talking points. If you think this decision isn't political, compare it to similar attempts in the past when the give has requested compliance from media in exchange for favors or threats. Or contrast it to the conspicuous silence from the "anti-censorship" crowd when conservative governors gut their state's educational system and destroy programs that teach subjects they find politically objectionable.
And apparently you've bought into that narrative entirely, as soon as you call anyone with a bit more historical perspective "pro-censorship."
I'm not "pro-censorship", whatever that means. What I see is a good-faith if inept attempt to combat massive, coordinated, and dangerous misinformation, an activity that falls well within the gov's purview.
Yeah you definitely are, that’s why you’re trying to insult me for disagreeing with you by referencing absurd issues and points I didn’t make.
Pro censorship means you’re in favor of censorship. Obviously you know what it means since it describes your position.
They couldn’t have been more plain, and that’s entirely sufficient basis for my accusation.
Upholding the position that the plaintiffs have standing, are likely to prevail, and more narrowly targeting the preliminary injunction is unequivocally not a finding against the plaintiffs.
Claiming otherwise is blatantly dishonest.
It’s not some minor detail in the article.
The degree of motivating reasoning involved here is astonishing.
Your summary, by contrast, is deeply, patently, and obviously wrong to such a degree that I must assume bad faith.