Supreme Court rules in favor of jannies - comment inside

:

I would be glad to know which concurring opinion you had in mind when stating that the signatory/ies has a poor understanding of how Reddit works.

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/1dtr46l/update_to_defending_the_open_internet_again_what/lbbpc1g/?context=8

IANAL IANYL ATINLA and I'm not Reddit's lawyer. This is just me, griping —

I read the Texas law, TXHB20, when it was proposed and when it was adopted.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F.htm

It has a section, Section 8, which I call the Hydra.

Section 8. (a) … it is the intent of the legislature that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this Act, and every application of the provisions in this Act, are severable from each other.
>> (b) If any application of any provision in this Act to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this Act shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the legislature's intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone.

Etc, etc. it has many other clauses in that section all to the effect of "if a court leaves so much as an atom of this law in place, we intend to use it, now and in the future".

IMO it's the real payload of the bill, and it's a definitive signal that they will not give up on this power grab until it's entirely disallowed.

That's what that section says: They're not throwing in the towel on this. Ever.

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/1dtr46l/update_to_defending_the_open_internet_again_what/lbbo8ih/?context=8