Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hugin

(37,849 posts)
37. My point is that yes free speech is fine...
Mon Jul 3, 2023, 12:55 PM
Jul 2023

But, it comes with consequences.

Is this “plaintiff” asking for the court to relieve her from the consequences of her free speech?

Loss of business? A negative reputation? Not getting invited to parties? That’s beyond the reach of even a severely pompous SCOTUS to grant.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Yes, and a lie on TOP of a lie. elleng Jun 2023 #1
The AG of the state where the lawsuit began needs to answer some questions. jimfields33 Jun 2023 #17
What questions would those be? Ocelot II Jul 2023 #39
Except that the web inquiry was never part of the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #38
This should go viral! GreenWave Jun 2023 #2
Absolute fraud. tanyev Jun 2023 #3
Why? What did they do wrong? Ocelot II Jul 2023 #40
Given that roughly 95% of all the right-wing's grievances are just phony made-up bullshit Hugh_Lebowski Jun 2023 #4
Yeah they make up shit, then they go on those damn talk shows 24 hours a day. Initech Jul 2023 #46
Kind inthewind21 Jul 2023 #48
Oh the irony Zeitghost Jul 2023 #51
Charge plaintiff with fraud and identity theft, at the very least. cbabe Jun 2023 #5
Well inthewind21 Jul 2023 #35
We'll have to lay the blame at the state's feet I'm afraid FBaggins Jun 2023 #6
i'll admit i'm not a lawyer, but have learned quite a bit on DU....... Takket Jun 2023 #7
That feels correct. Whoever this straight man is, he should file his own suit, Volaris Jun 2023 #8
The straight man was not at the center of the case; he wasn't even relevant. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #50
Thank you for clearing that up! But if there was no actual request made, Volaris Jul 2023 #53
The lawsuit was for declaratory and injunctive relief. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #54
Standing wasn't really an issue here FBaggins Jun 2023 #11
Yep Effete Snob Jul 2023 #19
Because the optics are that bad. shrike3 Jul 2023 #23
Yep. The mystery non-defendant Hortensis Jul 2023 #25
The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, a common way to determine Ocelot II Jul 2023 #42
Yes... 2naSalit Jun 2023 #9
They did nothing of the kind. Don't you think Sotomayor would have mentioned that Ocelot II Jul 2023 #43
Well... 2naSalit Jul 2023 #45
They knew this edhopper Jun 2023 #10
The decision in no way hangs on the website contact inquiry Zeitghost Jul 2023 #41
It's about as moot/premature/un-hearable as a case can get. elleng Jun 2023 #12
No, it wasn't. It was a declaratory judgment action Ocelot II Jul 2023 #29
Let's just call it..."Alternative Facts". Midnight Writer Jun 2023 #13
Was any or all of this brought up at trial? no_hypocrisy Jun 2023 #14
No, because it didn't matter Effete Snob Jul 2023 #18
Got it. no_hypocrisy Jul 2023 #21
There was no trial; it was an appeal from summary judgment. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #49
sorry decisis Qutzupalotl Jun 2023 #15
Legislating from the bench. n/t moondust Jun 2023 #16
I was assuming that the case was actually argued before the supreme court justices. but was it? msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #20
It went through two courts along the way Effete Snob Jul 2023 #22
interersting thank you. msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #24
Because the the plaintiff did have standing. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #44
Interesting. I was not aware this is a common practice msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #47
This ruling was rotten to the core... Hugin Jul 2023 #26
Most states have public accommodation laws Ocelot II Jul 2023 #30
There are a million reasons to decline a project... Hugin Jul 2023 #31
But the plaintiff's motivation was irrelevant to the legal issues. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #32
Yes, I agree. This case was constructed around a... Hugin Jul 2023 #34
The plaintiff is not hypothetical. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #36
My point is that yes free speech is fine... Hugin Jul 2023 #37
She's asking to he allowed go advertise in way that violates tyre law on public accommodations Ms. Toad Jul 2023 #52
They are allowing cert on hypotheticals where no actual damage can be proven Trenzalore Jul 2023 #27
Once again, it was a declaratory judgment action. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #33
Except that the inquiry was never used or considered in the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Supreme Court's "Gay W...»Reply #37