[dcrazy]

> Nobody’s speech is restricted in any way.

Justice Sotomayor disagrees with you [1]:

> Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She stressed that she saw “no reason to assume without deciding that the Act implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.”

The rest of the justices sidestepped the question by assuming the First Amendment was implicated for the sake of argument.

[1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tik...

[imgabe]

They upheld the ban even if there were a First Amendment interest. That doesn’t mean that there is one, it means that if there were one it wouldn’t matter. They didn’t examine if the first amendment applied or not because it wouldn’t matter.