2/22/2023 0 Comments Dedrm calibre 3.0![]() ![]() ![]() For instance, the courts surely hate the idea of "banning books", yet they're happy to issue an injunction against a book if they conclude it's defamatory after a libel trial. Also, as someone else brought up elsewhere in this thread, the courts are probably more used to seeing government suppression of speech as a first amendment problem than suppression of speech through civil litigation by private parties. I think other answers are about "atmospherics": grad students asserting first amendment rights in software are more sympathetic than hacker journalists, even if both are ultimately pretty antiestablishment. One answer is that because of the DOJ tactic you mention, Bernstein isn't binding precedent. You might ask how we reconcile this with Bernstein, where the first amendment arguments were doing so well. That was one of the most upsetting events of that decade for me, but I would insist that the first amendment argument has been tried, and at least in that context and those courts, it lost. The SDNY and Second Circuit rejected the defendants' first amendment arguments in the Corley case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |