undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrefulgentis4mo ago0 comments

“ Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system”

What you are describing is exactly what is going on here. OFCAM’s final action, if taken, is blocking at ISP level. All of the legal stuff is happening in the UK system.

I’m just sort of curious for your thoughts after learning that.

(Also, I’m curious about the SCOTUS decision, I.e. which one? I used to be a law nerd and got a kick out of reading oral arguments for the first time in years this week, would appreciate more material)

0 comments

landl0rd4mo ago

No, it's also able to do things like issue fines, which they have, although American law is not amenable to actually collecting those if their assets are all here. I don't really care if british choose to block something on british soil.

Murthy v. Missouri was generally a loss; 6-3 with Justice Barrett for the majority ruling states lacked standing, which is consistent with the Roberts court's informal policy of dodging. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and I think Gorsuch, and that is worth a read. The more important one was NRA v. Vullo, a unanimous opinion from Sotomayor. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence as did I believe one other justice.

mbac327684mo ago

The remarkable thing about Murthy is it was bipartisan, with the 3 dissenters being conservative.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse