- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Likely…LIKELY?!
That is the wording they often use on injunctions. As there has not been a full trial they like to keep it as “likely”.
Ahh so it’s like “Allegedly”, a legal safety net.
I was confused on that as well.
It’s probably because the Bible was banned or something ina few other states with laws inspired by Florida and Texas there’s no way the 5th circuit (the same one trying to ban “plan b”) gives a shit about the constitution
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The three-judge appeals panel issued a unanimous ruling that the plaintiffs — two Texas bookstores; three national trade associations representing booksellers, publishers and authors; and a legal defense fund — would likely succeed on their claims that Texas’s law violates their First Amendment right to free speech.
The Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act (READER) requires vendors who want to do business with Texas public schools to give sexual-content ratings for all library material and flag any “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” material.
“The question presented is narrow: Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights?
Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed by former President Trump, wrote in the unanimous opinion.
We vacate the preliminary injunction against Chairs Wong and Ellis and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit against them.
Texas has said the law aims to protect children and has pushed back on claims of free speech by the booksellers.
The original article contains 402 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
