Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Malone is vaccinated. He's against vaccine mandates.

The surpreme court seems to agree with Malone as well.

Should the surpreme court be deplatformed?




Does the supreme court have a justice who gives interviews on hugely popular podcasts about why vaccines are dangerous?


It doesn't need popularity to make its decrees accepted or even believed: they are by definition the controlling law of the land. Whether you read their opinions or not.

You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?


Maybe the reason the podcast is so popular is because there's some truth to it.

Your views may not be as accurate as you believe.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: