One of the many depressing parts of the GOP takeover of the federal courts is just how low-wattage these guys are. Alito is at the top of the food chain, and he thinks he made a really clever point by conflating "government throws you in jail for political speech" and "private website deletes post."
As a long-time English teacher I feel compelled to note that "content moderation" is not a euphemism for "censorship," but rather "censorship" is a dysphemism for "content moderation": that is, it's a phrase chosen specifically in order to make something basically innocuous sound sinister.
I never understood fawning over Scalia. He was good writer but intellectually dishonest and flawed. I felt dumber reading about him asking “can govt force you to buy broccoli” during ACA arguments.
It's almost like confirming judges ranked 'not qualified' by the ABA is a bad thing.
(I know this doesn't apply to Alito, but it DOES apply to some judges confirmed during Trump's tenure).
Did the guy who asked how much YouTube weighs as a newspaper try asking if editors were thrown in jail for refusing to print certain stories in newspapers.
Did I just give myself worms.
And we know this reasoning won't apply when angry women post "men are trash" with pithy account of how and why.....
It *won't* apply when minority members post "dear White People, could you stop doing this harmful thing..."
Wow, dude must have felt really persecuted back in the days of print. I relish the good ol’ days when there were only so many column inches available and fascists dipshit’s opinions never got published.
To be appointed to the federal bench by a Dem requires legal talent, years of distinguished work, a closet free of skeletons, a track record of honesty, and some good fortune.
To be appointed by a Republican just requires a law degree, youth, and fidelity to right-wing ideology.