mdp2021 2 hours ago

Still not that simple:

> The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices - a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis”

The constitutional question (and note that state Constitutions, e.g. Massachusetts, may instead cover it) is just one piece of the mess.

▲

quotemstr an hour ago | parent [-]

Where is the constitution does it say the state can't do that?

▲

mdp2021 an hour ago | parent [-]

We would ask you to rephrase - and, if we interpreted correctly, to reread.

▲

quotemstr an hour ago | parent [-]

"We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness.

As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements?

The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments

▲

klawed an hour ago | parent [-]

The gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions

	▲	JuniperMesos an hour ago \| parent [-]
		But not Mississippi evidently, or the court probably would've mentioned that and Mother Jones reporter Sophie Hurwitz would've mentioned that in the article. Maybe Mississippi should enact some kind of state constitutional provision asserting this, but they haven't.