Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent ef…
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)