[staybailey]

Presumably the lack of any contextualizing verbage. Like zero effort to connect the evidence presented with the assertion.

Notably the evidence presented has plain gaps. Consider the second link: "Goldstein's attorneys were unable to argue for protection under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1915 that movies lacked such protection. (That ruling was overturned in 1952.)" That final parenthetical is critical because it suggests that a modern court would not rule the same way the court did in 1915 given similar facts.

To be clear, I don't have enough context to evaluate the merits of the statement in full just noting why it may have come across as glib and hence downvoted.

[sudosysgen]

If you completely disregard the first link, then this conclusion does make sense, but the

That said, yeah I'd agree that there wasn't a lot of effort, but the first link reealllyyyyyyy speaks for itself here.