[lightedman]

You seem to be mistaken on what an injunction is.

This is not a direct ruling, it is an order to cease the current behavior (the gov't telling social media companies to censor speech) until it can be ascertained whether or not this is a harmful thing which is happening.

You're acting as if this injunction creates a law or sets some sort of precedent. It truly does not.

[brasic]

I know very well what an injunction is and does. You seem to be mistaken on what “law” is. It is by no means limited to statutory text or even final judicial opinions.

The fact that contempt of court is the only real penalty available for violating this injunction is exactly why it’s harmful. Making ludicrously broad and unenforceable injunctions like this inevitably corrodes the rule of law and damages the overall system.

[lightedman]

"You seem to be mistaken on what “law” is."

As the person that whipped Electronic Art's ass in court over the Spore DRM, no, I'm pretty well-aware of what 'law' is. And re-reading your post, again, you're still giving off the impression that this is some bad thing. It isn't.

It's literally the gov't telling the gov't to quit being a twerp while the courts actually figure out wtf is going on.