alt Hacker NewsThe replies here seem slightly off base. The Court acknowledges that 1s amm. free speech issues are at play. A law can regulate non-expressive activity (corporate ownership) while still burdening expressive activity, which is the case here. In such instances, the Court grants Congress more leeway compared to laws explicitly targeting speech. It checks that (1) the govt has an important interest unrelated to speech (it does), and (2) the law burdens no more speech than necessary (arguable, but not obviously wrong)
Replies
cataphract • yesterday at 7:56 PM
You mean Sottomayor and likely Gorsuch acknowledge the 1st amendment issues at play. The rest just assume it without deciding.
➕ show 1 reply
My reading of it is they didn't bother to take the motivation of the law into account (suppression of speech), and only took the law "as written" to decide.
> We need not decide whether that exclusion is content based. The question be- fore the Court is whether the Act violates the First Amend- ment as applied to petitioners. To answer that question, we look to the provisions of the Act that give rise to the effective TikTok ban that petitioners argue burdens their First Amendment rights...