archive (But really, if you’re in the Southland please subscribe, they have consistently good/important articles)
SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on X and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.
The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.
Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.
Military officials argue that launches by SpaceX, a leading contractor at Vandenberg Space Force Base, should be considered a federal activity because all of its launches benefit military objectives… As such, Space Force officials don’t have to obtain a permit or permission from the California Coastal Commission for rocket launches; they only need to reach an agreement to mitigate the effects.
But commissioners in recent months have questioned whether SpaceX launches, which carry private Starlink equipment on up to 87% of their flights, should be considered private activity.
Military officials have gone before the commission repeatedly this year to try to significantly increase the number of SpaceX launches, and officials said they plan to once again ask for another increase — for up to 100 annually — by early next year.
“Today’s vote hasn’t changed the [Department of the Air Force’s] or Vandenberg’s unwavering commitment to preserving the California coastline and the precious species that reside there,”
This is not a First Amendment violation or anything approximating one. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech”, and this of course applies to laws created by state legislatures too. What law is being created here which abridges freedom of speech? A state commission is denying Musk from launching more rockets from the coast, something which he absolutely does not have an inherent legal right to do.
Would you say that it’d be a First Amendment issue if I applied for a government job, went and cussed out the interviewer, and then was turned down for the job because it was the government abridging my freedom of speech?
I agree with your analysis of the law, but I do get why people are a bit uncomfortable with this. Elon has been a shit human, rocket launches have impacted wildlife and SpaceX and Tesla have been toxic places to work for a long time, but that’s only become a problem recently because he’s been getting more involved in politics? The whole point of having a regulatory state separate from the rest of the government is so they can set and enforce rules fairly and impartially.
deleted by creator
The California Coastal Commission’s job is to conserve the Californian coastline and have the authority to approve and deny this sort of thing, and no, you absolutely do not have a legal right to just launch a shitload of rockets off the Californian coast without prior government approval.
I’m not literally saying that Musk is employed by the California government; I’m saying that Musk doesn’t have an inherent legal right to this much like I don’t have an inherent legal right to work in the government, and California has the right to shut down his rocket launches on any grounds they want.
deleted by creator
Okay, and your legal credentials and/or cited example(s) of judicial precedent is/are [fill in the blank here].
To be clear, they are simply choosing not to continue providing something they’re actively privileging Musk with, namely allowing the rocket launches. They’re not revoking something that he inherently has the right to.
It would be like if the government were paying Musk money, he said and did a bunch of fucked up shit, and then – absent a contract saying they can’t – stopped providing the money. That’s not a First Amendment violation; that’s just discontinuing giving Musk something he isn’t entitled to.
deleted by creator
You’re the one making a claim here that this is a probable First Amendment violation and liable to get the CCC in deep legal shit here, not me. The burden of proof is on you.
If a unicorn runs into the courtroom, the prosecution is required to do the hokey pokey and donate exactly $2 to a charity of the defense’s choice. Now I could be a good boy and cite the statute that says that, or I could tell you “actually, you go find something that says it doesn’t exist and prove me wrong lol.”
Which one seems more reasonable?
deleted by creator
Better get reading if you want to have any hope of disproving the unicorn statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1