This year, I added a 2-slide segment about Calvinball to the first day of my Internet Law course

I mean…let me know if you think you can articulate a principled justification for how the court decided that intermediate scrutiny applied (other than the obvious Calvinball explanation)…

Maybe the fact that practicing law has become Calvinball is important for students to understand? I've not attended law school, but I imagine that teaching law inherently includes a significant bias in favor of the legitimacy of the courts (which is probably valid in the majority of circumstances). But anyone looking at that case can see an obvious set of on-point precedents, respect for those precedents by the District Court, motivated reasoning by the Fifth Circuit, and a lazy disregard of how law is done by the Supreme Court. I imagine that's useful for anyone interested in practicing internet or First Amendment law to know?