[moussess]

Of course I read it, opinion said

“ At the same time, a law targeting a foreign adversary’s control over a communications platform is in many ways different in kind from the regulations of non-expressive activity that we have subjected to First Amendment scrutiny”

And the opinion talks about foreign adversary, those exact words, at least 30 times. It mentioned freedom of speech twice

[DangitBobby]

So it was a free speech issue, wild.