My guess is that the judge can't strip big tech from legal protections. Judges are just supposed to interpret law. If the law needs to be changed it must be done by the legislature.
By quoting these two cases, legal observers note, the judge is signaling that Twitter’s days of claiming it is a private company so as to avoid its clear oppression of conservative speech, banning scores of conservative journalists, and promotion of liberal views, may be coming to a close end: Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019):“A private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, … when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action…”Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982):“a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State”
My guess is that the judge can't strip big tech from legal protections. Judges are just supposed to interpret law. If the law needs to be changed it must be done by the legislature.
By quoting these two cases, legal observers note, the judge is signaling that Twitter’s days of claiming it is a private company so as to avoid its clear oppression of conservative speech, banning scores of conservative journalists, and promotion of liberal views, may be coming to a close end: Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019):“A private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, … when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action…”Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982):“a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State”