The Supreme Court docket heard oral arguments Monday in Moody v. NetChoice, one in every of two instances difficult GOP-backed legal guidelines in …
source
The Supreme Court docket heard oral arguments Monday in Moody v. NetChoice, one in every of two instances difficult GOP-backed legal guidelines in …
source
case using Using judge dredd Jerry Dean Rice II format for hearing.17 usc 501 and 17 usc 511 forms 489, 477, 486, page 964,965,966 federal tribunal.
If gov't persuade people to be their proxy agents without threats in theory it be legal loophole to circumvent the 1st amendment but, it also defeats the purposes in separation of influence such as like church and state to avoid conflicts of interests because regardless these are organizations with their own mutual political objectives.
Viv GUY PHILIPPE.
There's an easier way to argue this case instead of talking about sites like linkedin. Focus on sites that have become what was traditionally a public forum for the masses. Sites involved in market trade and jobs differ in their needs to moderate as opposed to a site where there's a broad discussion about all topics.
If a platform censors it should take responsibility for what it doesnt
Any platform or media entity that can manipulate remove or promote ideas, opinions, or other related content should be considered responsible for the consequences it creates. New laws should be introduced for new technologies as they become relevant
Freedom of speech is does not cover freedom of responsibility . Common sense
The SC are disgusting
"Google censoring speech is free speech."
Lol those Trump appointed "conservative" justices are really paying off!
They are social media!!! They can do what they want!! Hell Fox News does. Fox News lies all the time!!!
Clarence Thomas sounds like a shill in audio only
Kagan wants to eat her cake and have it too with section 230. Kagan’s inanity & ignorance is on full display calling Twitter/X an editorial newspaper. Recall dems claiming they never sought to defund police, they never eliminated 93 Trump border regulations to encourage illegal immigration — all lies, all revised history just like these social media companies saying we are not publishers not editors and need 230. Now they say we are publishers and censorship is our editorial process and organization method. Amy Coney Barrett really is a grammar teacher and librarian first. Still working on an informed and fair opinion of Jackson, detached from her embarrassing “I’m not a biologist” answer to “what is a women?” During her confirmation hearing.
I think the issue is the people don’t understand the difference between how social media works and why they don’t get treated the same as phone companies or penalized like news papers. Communication have formed an oligarchy where they just divery up location amongst them selves and since they own the infrastructure new competition is less likely.
The issue should be regulation of expression vs regulation of commerce. You can share ideas like an open community corkboard so long as you dont restrict posts. Post as much as you want. If you are selling something and exchange is made then regulation and restrictions can be made per the host. Its fairly simple facial challenge to me. Any thoughts?
I think anti-trust law is the easier way to limit the impact of social media companies. A first amendment case invariably becomes a case about censorship by the government and would fail in court. Soromayor is correct about the novelty of this case. I think the justices want a way out of making a decision. I like Prelogar's comments about the government ability to counter the influence of social media. She says the first amendment argument is harder than the options she presents; specifically, anti-trust law
Only a leftist would actually try to argue that the 1St Amendment protects the right to censor 😂
Ooooh … it's about HARM to da KIDS!!! + TERRRRORISM. Mu SAFETY. 🤣
Bc there's NOOO NEXUS by GOV (DEMs!!!) + Big Tech CENSORSHIP??
Then why were they ALL upset re FREE SPEECH when Elon bought Twitter?
Kagen thinks they have a problem w "misinformation" (a total misnomer as what they call "misinfo is often TRUE), and bc for the prior 4 years they made the exact OPPOSITE CLAIM!
Florida is stupid
Glad to see these online for us to listen to than getting sound bites.
Supreme my foot , decision for hire is more like it.
Спасибо тебе за видос удачи тебе)
Russian and Chinese bots will love this Florida law.
Difficult..who wants big Corps controlling what we say either especially when only a few dominate..
Time for Crooked Clarence and Witch Finder Alito to retire…
The private social media companies have become the extension of the federal government to control the public. That was obvious with Twitter during the 2020 election. And that was obvious when the state department used twitter to overthrow the foreign governments. When the freedom of speech on the social media backfired at home, the federal government started suppressing it through the mainstream media and through the social media platforms, since we are living under the dictatorship of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media Complex, that has expanded now to the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media-Technology Complex.
You can find the information about how it works in the Tucker’s interview with Mike Benz: “The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy."
@tomshahriari6602 Nope, we live in a supposedly free country. If you want to live in a dictatorship where the elite approves what information hundreds of millions are allowed to see, then maybe you'd be better off in China, North Korea, or Iran.
You can express your views but Facebook ect has the final say I don't think so. Dude just say it's censorship
the government telling us who’s content is acceptable and who’s may be “moderated”… is CENSORSHIP! of the 1st degree!
why do Conservatives love everything BAD about socialism, but don’t like collective purchasing power or even letting the citizens protect themselves from the moneyed’s influence? it’s OUR government right? to protect and serve US ALL! not subjugate us for the cultural and financial gain of a few!
About time someone takes on these private companies
WEF SAID, there number 1 enemyvis freedom to speak
It is but it isn’t; you can but you can’t; you will but you won’t; just make a decision that preserves freedom.
Your video taught me something new today. It's amazing how much knowledge you share with your viewers.
If I own a media company, I get to determine what is printed.
Let Capitalism take care of it.
There is no free speech; you always pay for what you say.
FB is defined legally as a platform. Not a newspaper.
It's not very often I'd side with Florida lol
Youtube has deleted about ten of my comments today on various topics. Even mentioning certain specific topics can trigger deletion. Its a problem.
These are private companies. The federal government shouldn't infringe on private businesses when it comes to the standards they set within the law. People sign the terms and conditions, which give the company permission to regulate content the way they see fit.
Separation of church n state
This is an effort to try to educate the so-called supreme court on the use of technology especially Clueless and Corrupt judge thomas, and as usual, they turn the question back on the attorneys. They should all be considered publishers, and liable. This not supreme court is outdated. Yes, They should be dealing with the ELEPHANT in every room Criminal at Large donald trump.