Record🤔

uri:

"at://did:plc:cak4klqoj3bqgk5rj6b4f5do/app.bsky.feed.post/3kfvvnkk7os2p"

cid:

"bafyreicmb47ngbhlues375qrx4muhpg6232qjqjc4hwkjnctdpz4763q6u"

value:

text:

"Reading through some of the other amici briefs in the Netchoice/CCIA case and there are some interesting ones, but wtf is this one suggesting that "sincere religious speakers" get some sort of extra special 1st Amendment rights that others don't get?"

$type:

"app.bsky.feed.post"

embed:

$type:

"app.bsky.embed.images"

images:

• alt:

  "Becket takes no position on the ultimate outcome
  of this litigation. Instead, it submits this brief to explain why the Court should distinguish the speech
  claims at issue in these appeals from Free Speech
  claims made by sincere religious speakers.
  INTRODUCTION
  This brief makes one point: religious speech should
  not be lumped together with the speech claims at issue
  in these appeals. Proper First Amendment analysis requires nuance, and this case concerns a set of commercial activities that are not religiously motivated. Given
  the broad scope of NetChoice and CCIA members’
  businesses, treating all of their actions as deserving
  the same kinds of protections as sincere religious
  speakers would weaken Free Speech rights for those
  the Founders designed them for. The Court should
  therefore make clear in its decision that—whoever
  prevails—the kind of speech claims at issue in these
  appeals are both different-in-kind from and weaker
  than claims by sincere religious speakers."

  image:

  

  View blob content

  $type:

  "blob"

  ref:

  $link:

  bafkreiaa7njo2763hqnbjyxipjtnaipakvojhw74pfei37dtxqstgdohy4

  mimeType:

  "image/jpeg"

  size:

  326724

  aspectRatio:

  width:

  441

  height:

  417

langs:

• "en"

createdAt:

"2023-12-06T22:30:47.551Z"