Utah Delays Constitutional Reckoning Over Its Social Media Law By Promising To Repeal & Replace It
from the repeal-and-replace-yourselves dept
As you may recall, Utah was the first of a bunch of states to pass one of the now increasingly popular laws trying to ban kids from social media. Utah legislators knew they’d get sued over it, and for that reason set a date for the law to go into effect in March of this year (over a year after the bill became law). For unclear reasons, the bill was not challenged immediately. In late December, NetChoice finally sued to block the law. By that point, bill author Michael McKell had already said he had planned to amend the law.
Apparently not wanting a court to actually examine just how unconstitutional the bill actually is, Utah’s Attorney General Sean Reyes asked the court to put off a hearing, saying that the legislature had agreed to pushback the enforcement of the law until October… and that the legislature planned to repeal and replace the bill with something else anyway.
Defendants Sean D. Reyes and Katherine Hass respectfully request that the Court amend the briefing schedule and vacate or continue the hearing currently set for February 12, 2024 because the effective date of the law at issue in this case has been postponed until October 1, 2024 and the Legislature is likely to repeal and replace the law during the current legislative session.
In response, NetChoice asked for the hearing to still be held, noting that the harm was still present (and that companies might still need to implement what the bill — unconstitutionally — requires).
Either way the judge agreed to not hold the planned hearing and to postpone it given the reasons Utah stated:
Given the delayed implementation of Utah’s Social Media Regulation Act and given the possibility that the Act will be altered during Utah’s legislative session, the court strikes the current briefing schedule and will vacate the February 12 hearing. The parties are to meet and confer and provide a joint notice by March 15, 2024 proposing an updated briefing schedule.
I understand why the judge would do this, but the whole situation seems kind of silly. If you’re going to “repeal and replace” or “alter” a law before it’s implemented, why did you pass it in the first place. And why were these decisions only made once you got sued?
It just feels like it puts an exclamation point in what a laughingstock the Utah legislature is on this issue. They know it’s unconstitutional. They know it’s pure grandstanding and culture warrioring. And they don’t want to face the music for abusing the rights of the citizens who elected them to support the Constitution, not undermine it.
Filed Under: michael mckell, sean reyes, social media, utah
Companies: netchoice
Comments on “Utah Delays Constitutional Reckoning Over Its Social Media Law By Promising To Repeal & Replace It”
if only a court defense of “We might take it back” was available to everyone.
silly black gowns
this demonstrates that “Courts” (government politicians costumed in black medieval clerical gowns) are unreliable defenders of citizen rights
the corrupt judge should be impeached, but is well protected by a dysfunctional judicial ‘culture’ long in place nationwide
Re:
Perhaps you can tell us why the judge is ‘corrupt’?
One thing about judges… they don’t like ruling on stupid shit that isn’t going to matter next week. NetChoice can still have their day in court, but only if the controversy remains after the promised repeal & revision. Or if the government renegs. Or when the revised version is presented.
Re: Re:
(sorry, continuing the previous)
Note also that the judge pushed the next meeting date back only one month (not the 8 that the State gave for enforcement), and did not close the case. NetChoice and the government have a month to get their ducks in a row, and if the State balks, it could go badly for them.
Re: Re: Re:
the judge could easily have issued an immediate temporary injunction against this manifestly unconstitutional social-media ‘law’ … thus, quickly protecting citizen rights while the court bureaucracy plodded along
instead, the judge readily bowed to the corrupt legislature politicians and their laughable ‘promises’ that they would somehow ‘fix’ that law later and somehow not now enforce that FORMAL law they commanded to be fully enforced
Justice delayed is Justice denied
Re: Re:
The law was passed, and it’s therefore the duty of the judge to rule on its Constitutionality as this lawsuit demands. Not in a month to wait and see what happens — NOW, a full year after the law was passed. In fact, if the law had been passed in good faith, those who wanted it would welcome a quick judgment, as it could guide their formulation of the “replacement” law they’re pretending to work on.
You can be sure this judge is just looking out for his Mormon buddies in the legislature. It’s Utah, Jake.
Re: Re: Re:
Tangentially related: If Donald Trump really thought he was innocent of all the criminal charges against him, he’d seek speedy trials. All of his delay tactics and attempts to achieve a level of immunity that would put him above the law speak to his guilt rather than his innocence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
What I’d like to know is why this site so enthusiastically supports children being preyed upon and tormented via social media? 🤔
Re:
hello revenge porn freak
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
block this comment
Re:
It doesn’t. What this site supports is the idea that “think of the children” is an argument often used to justify the curtailing of civil rights out of a need to protect children from threats that are sometimes imaginary or overblown. We can protect children without having to violate the Constitution; we can protect the Constitution without having to endanger children.
That point besides: Parents should bear the most responsibility for raising their children. The government shouldn’t be stepping in as parents if a child’s actual parents have no reason to believe the use of social media is harming said child.
Re:
The true purpose of these laws is not to protect the children. And you know it. Let’s not play games here. Just like in Florida Republicans claimed all these laws were only about the children. Now they are passing laws that restrict adults too. Every session they pass more and more restrictive laws on LGBT. Meanwhile the state is suffering under an insurance crisis the legislature flat out refuses to address. These Republicans are a complete joke!
Re: Re:
“These Republicans are a complete joke!” but please realize that clowns with flamethrowers still have flamethrowers
Re:
Show that children have problem interaction with strangers rather than other children the know and interact with in the real world. Children could always be quite nasty to other children that did not fit in with them.
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Shouldn’t you be asking the Utah legislature that question? Ya know…the ones delaying implementation?
Re:
What I’d like to know is why you keep lying like that.
We’re just pointing out that the proposed solution is unworkable, unconstitutional, and won’t help solve the alleged problem anyways, possibly even making it worse. Oh, and that the alleged problem is, at best, greatly exaggerated.
Just saying “This will protect children,” doesn’t automatically make it good; it doesn’t even prove that it will actually protect children.
Re: Re:
“This will save people” was the same deludional lie we were tolf by Fosta’s supporters… who allnow have blood on their hands as their “solution” made the problem worse so mich it has literally caused death.
The “save the kids fro the (unproven) harms of social media!” cult is similarly delusionally promoting harm.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Of course it will. Only degenerate liberals want kids to continue being exploited and abused online.
Re: Re: Re:
read the stories of kids that have commuted suicide, and in almost all cases their tormentors are other kids they meet in real life, like fellow pupils at school. Social media is not the problem, but kids being mean to other kids that for some reason do not fit in with their peer groups.
Re: Re: Re:
Social media amplifies the behavior of assholes to a degree that is frightening, but take away social media and they’ll find some other way to hurt the people they want to hurt. You won’t—can’t!—solve the problem of anti-social human behavior by destroying Twitter.
Re: Re: Re:
You spelled “comservatives” wrong.
Re: Re:
It’s a way to avoid having to defend an indefensible bill/action by shifting the burden of proof to the other side when you know you can’t defend a bill/action honestly.
By simply asserting that a bill/action is meant to protect kids you can frame the discussion as ‘those who want to protect kids(read: you)’ and ‘those who want to see kids harmed(read: anyone who disagrees with you) with any criticism by the latter as not worth addressing because clearly the only reason someone could disagree with you is not because you’re wrong, proposing something that’s worthless or even actively harmful but because they want kids to be hurt.
This works especially well in the news given how spineless most news agencies are, unwilling to call people on lies lest they no longer be ‘neutral’ and who will happily let you control the narrative in this manner with nary a hint of pushback.
Where it falls apart though is when the one attempting it runs into the bane of dishonest people everyone: [Citation Needed], with how they respond to that showing who is acting in good faith and just happens to be wrong and who is acting in bad faith, knows they can’t defend their actions, and scrambles to do anything but defend the bill/action in question.
Q: If you’re going to “repeal and replace” or “alter” a law before it’s implemented, why did you pass it in the first place. And why were these decisions only made once you got sued?
A: Some combination of:
– Because you passed the law for performative reasons.
– Because you didn’t listen, before passing the bill, to internet-Cassandra telling you that the bill was doomed.
– Because you wanted to troll the legal landscape; if nobody arose to challenge the law, you could let it go into effect; if they did, you could ask for a mulligan.
A paper tiger when you check it's claws
It’s so strange how the the state went from a confident if not arrogant ‘We dare you to bring this to court where we’ll defend it’s constitutionality and win!’ to ‘Hey now, let’s not bring the legal system into this, no need for a lawsuit! Look, we pinky-promise we’re doing something about the teeny-tiny constitutional issues it might have and we knew about all along, so there’s no need for a lawsuit, let’s just talk this out.’
Culture Warrioring
Ah, the verb “to warrior”. I’ll add that to my lexicon.
People can learn from their mistakes
This sentence is answering it’s own question. These people did something they thought was okay, got attacked for it, did some research, and realized it wasn’t okay. They just admitted they were wrong and the are trying to fix it and asked for a little time.
It will be interesting to see what the fix is.
Re:
You do realize why a lot of people are mad enough to say the courts are inherently corrupt, right?
The courts are bending over backwards to placate a group some people rightly call “traitors to America” to prevent a SECOND Civil War.
Re:
That is a…charitable interpretation of events.
Re: Re:
You spelled ‘fantastical’ wrong….
Re: 'We ignored everyone telling us we were wrong, how were we to know?!'
This sentence is answering it’s own question. These people did something they thought was okay, got attacked for it, did some research, and realized it wasn’t okay. They just admitted they were wrong and the are trying to fix it and asked for a little time.
Yeah, no.
The problem with that excuse/explanation is that they were told what was wrong with the bill before they passed it, and even went so far as to boast about how awesome and constitutional it was and how they’d gladly take it to court to prove it, the idea that it was only after someone called their bluff and sued them was when they realized that it might have problems is one that just doesn’t fly.
They knew it wasn’t constitutional and they passed it anyway, the only reason they’re backing down is that they know if they have to defend it in court it’s not going to go well for them and as such they’re trying to dodge the lawsuit they claimed they were so confident in winning before it was filed.
Re:
Might I suggest going on facts rather than feelings before attempting to implement a law? There’s nothing here that wouldn’t have been revealed by discussing things properly rather than waiting for outcry after the fact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just use a VPN to hide your real location.
This does not break any laws
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
OK, online predator.
Re: Re:
because using a VPN to let me see YT videos that are only viewable in Japan makes me a predator… okay then lol
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m glad you can admit this. Hopefully Mike will proactively tip off the FBI to your sick consumption of disgusting Japanese child predation content.
Re: Re: Re:2
fuck off revenge porn freak hyman
Re: Re: Re:2
he never admitted low life troll
Re: Re: Re:2
every accusation a confession
Re: Re: Re:
just flag the other user there a low life right wing troll who is desperate for attention
Re: Re:
flag the troll