Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that striking down 9 out of the 10 restrictions placed by the trial court indicates precisely what I said. You're entitled to your opinion, but you have no basis to accuse me of acting in bad faith.
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.