nilay patel

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk The second you leave the First Amendment behind, you’ve left it. Banning spam exceeds the gov’s authority under 1A. They’re not going to want lots of hate speech either, which is protected speech, that exceeds what the gov can do under 1A. The list is endless. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk Well, good luck in court — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk CAN-SPAM is not a speech regulation; it is a commercial conduct regulation. It requires labeling and opt-outs, and prohibits certain frauds. It does not in any way ban spam, which would make it unconstitutional. You cannot google your way through this, you have to do the reading. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk You can keep arguing with a lawyer armed with Wikipedia or you can take a moment to recognize that the government has not banned spam, verified by the presence of spam — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk Because spam is protected speech — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

It’s just words, and people arguing about what the words mean. There are no right answers and no deterministic outcomes. Unless you’re rich, in which case it’ll probably work out for you. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Engineers thinking the legal system works like computers will be the death of us all — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk Now shepardize this 40-year-old case and see where the boundaries have moved, heh. Also the core holding here is that commercial speech is protected and can only be banned in narrow ways — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk I don’t know, I would have to read the case law to figure out the boundaries in 2022. “False advertising” means a lot of things to a lot of people, mere “puffery” is protected speech. The hairs, splitting endlessly — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk I am a lawyer and splitting hairs is what we do, especially when it comes to government speech regulations. If you want to do this, you have no choice but to split hairs, endlessly, forever — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk Read the case! CAN-SPAM does not regulate speech; it regulates commercial conduct and creates new kinds of fraud charges. Spam is still 100 percent protected speech; it was mostly dealt with by Google monopolizing email and being able to filter it in ways the gov cannot. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk Spam is protected speech in the United States. Is there junk mail in your mailbox? — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Uh oh number go down https://t.co/6V6UVikfbl — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk The government cannot prohibit spam and the CAN-SPAM act did not prohibit it. This is easily verified by noting that spam is not prohibited. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrandonLive @marypcbuk The government cannot prohibit spam. If you want to prohibit spam, you have to go beyond the restrictions of the First Amendment. Once you do that, your wikipedia research goes out the window. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 I am just going to keep pointing at the literal text, which advocates increased government speech regulations instead of private moderation decisions. "If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed." There's no getting around it. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 The problem is that again, the actual text does not agree with you, because it explicitly says government speech regulations are the preferred outcome — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@sriramk @DeftCrankshaft @DavidSacks The literal text of Elon's tweet does not support your interpretation. He is explicitly advocating for government speech regulations — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 Government speech regulations are bad — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 That is literally advocating for government speech regulations — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 Is that what this says “If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so” — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@zrahul2020 Good luck! — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@zrahul2020 government speech regulations are bad — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@BrianKirby161 is that what the literal text there says, or does it say the citizens of a country should ban more speech via the power of the government — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@crazypills3 you didn't do anything here, i'm sorry — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@zrahul2020 well i wish you luck trying to amend the first amendment to allow for more government speech regulations — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@crazypills3 my house my rules — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@DeftCrankshaft Wikipedia is an excellent resource for many people but perhaps limited in this context — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@zrahul2020 You will note the framers of our democracy explicitly limited the power of the government in crucial ways, including the ability to pass with respect to the freedom of speech — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Here in America, the idea is to keep the government out of the speech regulation business. But excited for Elon to to suggest we overturn the First Amendment in order to get spam off Twitter — PolitiTweet.org