@758831d4 I suppose that the more charitable interpretation is that she doesn’t have any of the records she meticulously kept because Harvard seized all of the computers she kept the records on at the beginning of the investigation. Or perhaps that is the impression her statement means to imply without actually saying.
@106ab8b7@b8e4a7a8 Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, an affected company could file a lawsuit focusing on the specific burdens imposed by the general editorial transparency requirements rather than addressing them in conclusory terms in a few paragraphs of declarations.
NetChoice and its members made some very cautious litigation choices, and if they couldn't be bothered to build a record on the issue, it's hard to blame the Supreme Court for not taking it up.
@b8e4a7a8 The SG was right; the NetChoice cases are bad vehicles for the Supreme Court to take up editorial transparency laws. The preliminary posture and NetChoice's litigation choices to deemphasize the issue mean that it's poorly presented here. NetChoice has the opportunity to persuade the courts that the laws are unconstitutional on a fuller record, and if it doesn't, there will be a circuit split on editorial transparency for the Supreme Court to review in due course.
@69c5f439 a couple of times a week, because one of my interests is how the guys who think about Roman history all the time are almost completely wrong about Roman history (starting with the fact that they fixate on the Empire and not the Republic)
For what it’s worth, X v. Bonta is a much better vehicle than the NetChoice cases for the Supreme Court to review mandatory editorial transparency laws.
I set my alarm for PM instead of AM, so I got up later than I planned.
Now it is 12 hours later, and guess what just happened.
Some people learn from their mistakes, but not me.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by de6ebfbd | export