Stupidly enough, one of the arguments used to deny this claim here
“if we don’t sell it, others will so it doesn’t help”
…so there’s no point in reducing these salesWas just used to justify the opposite when ruling about piracy
“if they we can’t offer pirated content, then everyone will”
…so they also banned a bunch of other stuff and can add to the list laterIt’s all politically motivated judges who try to appear above the fray, but they’re not. It’s an inherently political position as a judge and we’d be better off seeing things how they are.
My moment was looking back to how the federal government passed a law to strip highway funding if states didn’t raise their drinking age to 21. The same logic was used to force states to expand the ACA in each state, where other federal medical funding would be cut if states didn’t take advantage of the ACA in their state. Ooopsies, as we know now, Republican judges struck that down and we have a half-baked medical solution. It’s still better than before though, albeit hobbled.
But you see, it’s different because… Reasons.
Litigation has failed.
Like trump they will run out the clock.
I hear gasoline is flammable.
