• mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Legally, this seems similar to the situation with Biden talking to social media companies to “stifle” vaccine misinformation. Federal courts intervened in that and limited what that admin could do.

    Although it’s pretty clear that Biden was on the wrong side of Calvinball Rule #2 in the Roberts court.

    • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      14 days ago

      There is a difference between the two situations in that the government has a compelling interest in limiting speech that could harm people through the spread of misinformation. Like the classic “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” metric of what is not considered free speech.

      In the case of Kimmel talking about Kirk, there is no compelling interest at play, as there is no possible direct harm to other people in saying literally anything about the guy, true or false.

    • Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 days ago

      I dont think the covid thing actually met the full description of a threat. They had strategy discussions and said “we want to prevent this issue”, but they didn’t go as far as Carr did by laying out punishments for non-compliance. It was just idea sharing among experienced peers.

      Or maybe I’m remembering the details wrong.