Supreme Court hears arguments in free speech cases involving social media, NRA | full audio

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a case that questions whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when it pressured social media companies to take down content that it believed contained misinformation. The court is heard a second case, NRA v. Vullo, which centers on whether a New York financial regulator went too far when she pushed insurance companies and banks to cut ties with the National Rifle Association after the 2018 deadly mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school.

#news #supremecourt #politics

[fredgarvinMP]

When did "misinformation" become a valid legal concept?

[Razor]

Imagine this, suppose someone owns a store and a neighbor who frequents the store asks the owner if they could paste a notice looking for a lost dog or cat, and the store owner says yes. Now suppose a random unknown person walks in and asks the store owner to stop talking to the neighbor or posting a lost dog or cat notices because he or she doesn't believe that people should have pets. How likely would the store owner be to listen to that random individual? Now imaging the same situation, but instead of some random person, instead a bunch of FBI agents walk in and talk to the store owner and say "We've noticed that you were talking to your neighbor who lost her cat, and even allowed her to post a missing pet flyer on the bulletin board, we're going to have to ask you to stop communicating with her and remove any flyers that she put on the bulletin board".
Would the odds of the store owner listening change? In both cases, they are technically asking for the same outcome. Based on the government's argument, the words of the FBI would carry no additional weight and have the exact same outcome.

[thecincinnatiryans]

A public point of view by a public employee acting on behalf of its public employer is speech. An intentionally private communication by a public employee on behalf of its public employer is coercion. Pretty simple.

[petecharleston]

So the governments position seems to be that verbal bullying is ok? If you would not allow your child to be bullied verbally, why would you allow the government to? Yet between this and the banking secrecy act, you have no right to privacy from your government

[mariestewart]

No it is not the government duty to remove harmful speech.

[fredgarvinMP]

One of the worst attorneys ever for one of the most important cases in history.

[fredgarvinMP]

It saddens me that this attorney is so vigorously defending the governments right to censor.

[mariestewart]

First amendment needed better council!

[stuff]

Justice Kagan is a smart confuser

And since she knows that the government has no foot to stand on she goes for the standing of the case and not for the actual law

And Council conceded to an interest balancing test which is very bad for the Constitution

[gottogo]

Discrimination is a god given human rite

[darrynwilliams]

can someone help me understand the seeming absolutism philosophy that underpins the interpretation of rights in the US constitution? I always get the sense in these hearings that people feel that rights, such as first amendment free speech rights, ought to be unfettered.

Government also has a responsibility to maintain social order and the world has changed in ways that speech, although not rising to the level of hate speech for example, has considerable power in shaping behaviour.

Secondly, rights have concordant responsibilities attached. Do free speech absolutists feel like people should be able to say whatever they want, unfettered and unconcerned with consequences?

In South Africa, our bill of rights includes a limitations clause that sets out a test for circumstances under which rights can be limited. That seems sensible.

Absolutism can be so dangerous in a world where people aren't bothered to apply critical reasoning to the information they consume. Also in a world plagued by loneliness, finding belonging in places where socially unpopular opinions has become commonplace and people can so readily be radicalised.

This is not an attack on anything just genuine curiosity. I get the sense that any attempt to moderate speech (precisely because of the power it wields) is anathema to absolutists and I am struggling to wrap my head around that.

[JayneTheory]

The government should be able to get a court order in those instances where an emergency action is required, which would allow it to compel the platform after a showing of a compelling interest and avoid violating free speech rights.

[petecharleston]

If as they say that social media recieved an overload of emails, you eventually just start denying a large swath just to comply with every little thing

[nkwhite]

At least they are LISTENING to the state's responses to the questions, this time; unlike during the 14th amendment ballot argument

[RobertTanguay]

This is awesome. If only these guys would take on Family Courts. See what it does on my page

[zhesu]

not to say 30years ago, but only 20, it’s hard to even imagine to put an argument based on goverment speech before the SC

btw, the argument on the side of respondant mentioning the Alvaris case seems to me a recalling memory of the fairness doctrine which I personally think was a balanced rule that should be reinstated as a real moderating mechnism in this media/platform concentrated era where the flow of information is heavily affected by algorithms

[zhefkug]

Are you going to lie n drive over me cuz im scared to!! 43:21

[tracezachdaniels]

''us help us all always and expose evil always ''

GREAT JOB ALL...THANX 4 MAKING Tee with LIONS NAMED LEO the music worldwide.
LOVE YOU ALL...!!!....MUCH LOVE.!!

[petecharleston]

Why is law enforcement supposed to assume everyone is guilty without evidence?

[martingenet]

0:54, 1:04, 1:22, 1:34 2:18 min in - reminder to self