First Amendment WIN! SCOTUS Rules Social Media Companies Can't Censor Political Beliefs

Robby Soave and Max Burns discuss the Supreme Court's decision to sidestep a pair of social media laws in Florida and Texas, sending them back to lower courts in each state for another review. Originally aired July 2, 2024. #scotus #socialmedia
About Rising:
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's most important political newsmakers.
Follow Rising on social media:
Website: Hill.TV
Facebook: HillTVLive/
Instagram: @HillTVLive
Twitter: @HillTVLive

[@samwilliams1142]

Unfortunately it is a loss for free speech to allow corporations to continue censorship depending on corporate ideology.

[@younglion0451]

Why is that a bad thing you’re interacting on their platform that they created?

[@afridgetoofar1818]

@@younglion0451this is the new town square

[@DerAptrgangr]

​@@afridgetoofar1818located entirely within corporate private property?

[@DavidDalrymple-df4eb]

It's not an issue if the company isn't a monopoly. I support individual companies to express their own values. But if it's a monopoly, then it's evil

[@afridgetoofar1818]

@@DerAptrgangr I didn’t realize social media companies owned the internet?

[@jeremya1018]

I hope this includes all social media including KZbin!!!

[@michaelccopelandsr7120]

Seconded!

[@winwin8129]

Half of my youtube comments vanished or became transparent.

[@davidrpayton]

100% does

[@mylegalassistants]

​@@winwin8129 Mine too 😢

[@AK1776-]

Most social media is owned by Alphabet Corporation including KZbin, instagram etc

[@jessebrogan8178]

The Federal Courts have never recognized the obvious - that the Bill of rights addressed preservation of citizen rights, not rights of the government officers or publication businesses. It is the citizen who is supposed to have protection, and Government is not to interfere with it.

[@jeffreydallas6047]

Well who is going to enforce these laws and boundaries on the government? Certainly not the government...

[@jessebrogan8178]

@@jeffreydallas6047 ;You and I represent We the People, and as such we are the only party in interest.

[@gov4130]

Don’t forget, corporations are people too now. People with more money and more access to our government than we do.

[@davidryan7386]

supposedly accorinng to some we are an english corporation now. the roth$ seem to act this way behind the scenes.

[@DanSchrimpsher]

Which is weird, because SCOTUS said the other week the government can tell social media what to take down. The only way to fix this is to remove the law suit prohibition on social meida. If they are going to act like publishers, then they should be treated as public.

[@HomeEngineer-wm5fg]

What is wierd is editorial headlines summarizing incorrectly to the masses what the SCOTUS intended.

[@davidrpayton]

Exactly

[@davidrpayton]

​@HomeEngineer-wm5fg yeah I agree, the title was the opposite of what happened.

[@VTAcraft]

Or an internet bill of rights where bug tech can't discrimate against you for (legal) dissident speech any more than your phone carrier or ISP can.

[@georgeschnakenberg7808]

​@HomeEngineer-wm5fg right it was denied for standing. Not merit

[@stonefacedninja]

Does this mean KZbin will stop deleting my comments ?!?!

[@SmoggyFroggy]

No, because they still hate your opinions. haha

[@DannyWildmen]

No this is only for politicians.... Not for us. Unfortunately.

[@robertpolnicky7702]

Every comment you tube deletes I take to x tik tok and rumble. I just got 1000 hits on rumble. On you tube censored comments.

[@MushramboMu]

Would be nice if social media like tw X and KZbin would stop hiding comments and also stop with allowing p rn bots to appear in comments

[@SmoggyFroggy]

@@MushramboMu No can do, to them, your opinions are far more important to censor.

[@katiebea9258]

This RULING still HAS NOT solved the problem.

[@spicywater123]

What is the problem?

[@TheOfficialPatriarchy]

@@spicywater123 Platforms can still censor your posts, they just cannot do it at the behest of the government.

[@fragelicious]

It's two days old, Einstein.

[@katiebea9258]

My thorough reply was almost immediately deleted, but official patriarchy nailed it.

[@unbreakable7633]

@@spicywater123 Private tyranny is the problem. Only humans have rights, not corporations.

[@DPoner]

So still nothing to stop social media companies from silencing speech they don’t like.

[@Registered_Democrat]

Nobody is above the law! Except BigTech overlords....

[@dragonf1092]

The bill of rights doesn't just protect the people from the government it protects our rights from each other as well. From anyone who wishes to violate them or take them away.

[@thomaschristiansen5133]

Supreme Court: "Big tech can put their thumb on the scales of democracy and choose which political speech gets seen and which gets deleted" The Hill: "A Big Win for Free Speech!"

[@AK1776-]

If they censor then it makes them a publisher who can be sued.

[@davidrpayton]

Ok, then these companies should lose their protections for what is said on their platforms.

[@TheLastKentuckyIrregular9524]

This was a loss for free speech. Especially following the ruling that the govt can work with social media to censor speech. This has merely cemented the idea that social media companies can pick and choose which political speech is allowed on their platform. Basically the SC just gave them the right to shape and mute public discourse.

[@NakedSageAstrology]

Amazing how the media twists it though isn't it?

[@memoryhero]

You can either let the firms themselves or the gov't choose which speech is allowed on social media. There is no third option. It is insane to warble that because the gov't doesn't get to to choose, free speech has been impugned. My god, man. The segment above which your comment stands flies two million percent in the face of your own opinion... and you don't grapple with a single second of it in writing.

[@TheLastKentuckyIrregular9524]

@memoryhero Social media is the public square of the modern era. It is akin to assaulting public protestors who have permits. That's a violation of civil rights and can be punished as such. These companies claim public protections for posts under the statue that they are not publishers yet then refuse to abide by public limits on speech bans and censorship. Either they are publishers and thus open to being held liable for what is promoted on their platform or they are a public space. They cannot be both.

[@ason4641]

​@memoryhero The two rulings combined allow the government to "ask" really nicely to remove posts, but not "tell", and, in any case tech companies can censor any speech they don't like. So hurray their freedom of speech, but not yours.

[@zanthonyhill8818]

So......my KZbin posts will stop disappearing???

[@jorkkeker8097]

“In a big win for free speech today the court upheld the right to arbitrarily censor”

[@geronimomiles312]

They just kicked the case back to the start and voiced some opinions for guidance to the lower courts . They didn't come down on the side of either litigant in their ... Response.

[@VeniVidiVid]

It invites the question: Arbitrary censoring by whom? As much as I agree that many Silicon Valley tech companies harbor huge left-leaning biases, it’s not technically censorship. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship. That said, I still think “jawboning“ (read extortion) from government officials should indeed be considered censorship.

[@EnlightenedMinarchist]

Imagine thinking you support Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, but making the comment you did, showing you dont know anything about Amendment I to the Constitution.

[@kaiezesi6630]

Good for RFK JR!

[@jasonwhite6463]

Conservative scotus majorities have already ruled that companies have the same rights as people and that money is speech. You cant put that genie back into the bottle.

[@melaniestarkey7868]

So actually nothing's been done we've been lied to again

[@Thedarbness]

Big Tech nor any other company in this country should be able to censorship either just because it's a private company because that is how one side gets heard more than the other and that is wrong!

[@younglion0451]

I get what you’re saying, and it is unfair in a way. However, a private company should be able to control the typos speech it allows on its platform.

[@danger7694]

@@younglion0451 Not necessarily. That still violates free speech. If it's going to be used by the public then they have no right to only allow the stuff they want to hear.

[@dragonf1092]

Where the courts went wrong was aknowldging a company or corporation as a person when they are not.

[@tinasmith1391]

History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. I'm old enough to remember the First Amendment hysteria surrounding Rush Limbaugh.

[@angiejefferys5779]

The United States also has monopoly laws but here we are

[@dragonf1092]

Social media companies, platforms shouldn't be allowed to censor or ban any speech, comments,text, tweets,posts whatsoever. The government has no constitutional authority or jurisdiction to allow them to censor anything or anyone.

[@kirkjohnson6638]

The government has no right to discuss, dictate, suggest, or in any other way control what opinions or information social media platforms should or should not convey. And if social media platforms actually want to be platforms rather than publishers, then they don't even have the right to read or analyze anything posted on their platform. If anyone posts anything illegal, it is up to the legal authorities to look for it, find it, remove it by court order, and prosecute the offenders.

[@rivernorthhomes]

Lol sorry but the 9th circuit court (California) is the absolute worst

[@99Racker]

Also, when the government PAYS a company to follow a directive, that company becomes a paid agent of the government just as a paid informant can be restricted against certain conduct. It can move from free speech to improper conduct.

[@damnyankeesdaughter5427]

Throw my healthcare and my religion into the political arena and then tell me I can’t say anything about it. I’m not angry at all 😂

[@ZO5150]

How is stopping free speech a win for free speech???

[@thepureheartofdark]

And I paraphrase from the video "But platforms can still censor to their hearts content." Meaning: censorship of views and ideas can still freely run rampant against one side.

[@JeannieHamilton-wm3cn]

So many good things coming out of Scotus

[@MrLogicAndReason]

People keep acting like this court is “very conservative” when really they are just doing a good job following the constitution. Doesn’t matter what side of the political fence you sit on an issue. These “conservatives justices” will just follow the constitution. They don’t just rule based on which political side it helps. As they should!

[@TheLastKentuckyIrregular9524]

They are mostly following it, but their decisions around big tech are wrong. They went agaisnt the Constitution by saying the govt has a right to pressure or work with these companies to censor speech.

[@jonecliptic]

FJBANDTHEPED0CRATS

[@johnnylafayette]

They will anyway

[@johnlangley6449]

Who going to enforce this ruling? The woke media? Facebook Twitter You Tube ? 😂

[@datboijdope]

Sad we ever had to have a ruling on this in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

[@beautifully_scarred_lea]

I might not agree with everything the new guy says, BUT HE IS REASONABLE.

[@Shellbee22]

They do !

[@I2AT]

Thank the lord. Huge win for freedom.

[@malelefonoimoana2925]

Well done Rising. And this new dude Max is tough!!!

[@geronimomiles312]

BTW ,Hill ... You really need to say what decision of SCOTUS youre talking about other than "todays opinion". The Hills opinion is a bit.. skewed , they decided only to vacate and remand , which temporarily upholds Florida and Texas original legislation. The justices disagree on whether the editorial behavior is 'expressive' and first amendment protected stuff. The constitutionality of actions of the federal gov at the time wasnt really addressed , what was decided was that the whole thing just gets kicked back because the case was not properly developed by Net zero , fifth or eleventh courts in a way that allows SCOTUS to do final adjudication. It isnt a win , because its not over, it was a false start.

[@ray_donovan_v4]

Oh.. so "only political beliefs"? Separation of church and state still exists But the "religiously devout" seem to Garner "favoritism"... 🤷 All religions (or lack of) should be equal here.. Yet it's not. Hypocrisy is rampant in 2024. People out here fighting against "sin" Neat.. I'm out here showing people that we're not a "serial identification number", Or a numerical "net worth". God and money.. What a joke.

[@ray_donovan_v4]

@robbie. 10:30 when people write posts.. Is it really "false information" Or something "disagreeable" by the very people screwing the population?

[@WatThaDeuce]

Social media services, as they currently operate, can ban anyone or remove anything they want from their platforms. They also aren't entitled to 230 protections.

[@dustin2269]

This is why the hill loved Robbie and Brie. They both defend the billionaires or their narrative.

[@hannaheye]

The First Amendment is my favorite one!

[@ja6975]

Private companies, private decisions. Another step toward fascism

[@robertevans2450]

attributing to the court an opinion they didn't express is not a good habit. They didn't say it was ok for the Govt to censor speech in the other case, they said the plaintiffs didn't have standing for which to ask for the court to consider the merits. They don't get to offer a hypothetical ruling on a hypothetical case, so they didn't.

[@traetrigon8816]

So who’s going to jail? It was already a law and it was already broken

[@ason4641]

Appeal section 230.

[@PatrickBiggsOBevur]

So when can I sue KZbin? I can prove that when I visit my comments using a different phone, they don’t appear. They only appear when I’m logged into my account. This has been done for a decade.

[@ValidatingUsername]

They should be able to as private companies. I thought that was the precedence set a year ago.

[@ShimobeSama]

Saagar came to the polar opposite conclusion about this ruling. Weird.

[@Solaafg]

Ron desantis didn’t go after any company for speech, he went for their actions and policies. 😅

[@seangrif11]

So behind-the-scenes intimidation is okay, but something like the equal time rule isn't? This may not be the victory for free speech that it appears.

[@starlacollins5689]

I kept thinking they were saying "Master P's Cake Shop". I was super confused for a second. 😂

[@DavidDalrymple-df4eb]

It used to be the 9th circuit in California that was used by leftists for lawfare. Now it's the 5th circuit.

[@thecatsupdog]

Why is your headline the opposite of what happened. Social media can censor political beliefs all they want, was the ruling. You can say that's a win for free speech if that's how you feel, but not that they can't censor.

[@James-hb8qu]

Choosing trans or MAGA are both choices. Why does only one choice protect you?

[@bootzmckenzington]

This segment is just terrifying

[@SuzyQ-TIE]

REPORT HOW MANY TIMES trump's NAME APPEARS IN THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS RELEASED July 1, 2024???

[@pegleg5725]

Give this new guy a radar!

[@melaniestarkey7868]

Just now when I wanted to leave a reply It was completely froze where I couldn't even go in to leave one so I closed everything down went back in now I'm able to leave a reply so is KZbin still going to keep this up I've got 3,000 people wondering about this.

[@utopianna]

I'm old enough to remember when you could write a letter to the editor with pen and paper, sign your name, fold it, put it in an addressed envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in the mail. Didn't mean the paper would publish your comment. You really had to be quite good with your point and not be overly offensive for it to even be considered. Now, needy whiney ill-informed babies think they have a right to get eyeballs on a social media post to which they often remain anonymous and enjoy being as offensive as they are wrong.

[@steelers4life75]

SCOTUS just dished out another delicous "L" for the Progressives. Anyone need more salt for flavoring?

[@TheLastKentuckyIrregular9524]

This was a win for them. The SC just let social media continue censoring Right-wing speech... at the behest of the govt btw.

[@nursetammy6470]

Commietube censored me today. This ruling means nothing.

[@JeannieHamilton-wm3cn]

I’m so happy to get the government out of social media controlling speech or political ideas

[@dragonf1092]

We need to stop social media terrorists calling themselves CEOs and board members from illegally violating our rights illegal censoring our speech banning people now with their terrorist bullying policies and terms of service.

[@mikecypret1045]

😊❤sweet😊❤

[@JeannieHamilton-wm3cn]

The only news commentators on social media with success are conservative voices

[@innova1335]

Hearing the left point of view discussed in such a calm direct and professional manner is kinda a shock considering the past representation on this program. Thumbs up.

[@dragonf1092]

A policy/terms of service is a custom applicable under Title 18 U.S.C. section 242.

[@WildchildProductionsTN]

I like this guy. He is smart and has good points and he and Robby have good chemistry. The Karen-haired girl, not so much..

[@hvp6218]

Now force the transparency of the algorithms that control what shows up in your feed.

[@shade38211]

Yet right here

[@gashacker1]

Excellent!

[@tylerd1297]

Master p's cake shop

[@oceania2385]

The new co-host reminds me of one the X-files "Lone gunman" cast.

[@Max_Ohm]

Hmm having trouble remembering that episode

[@oceania2385]

@@Max_Ohm Had to look it up, the actor is John F Beyers - This guy is a dead ringer

[@antoniobridgeforth2362]

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@insiderinside1905]

cursory glance shows the comments section, once again, making more sense than the talking heads. how is it a win for free speech id INDIVIDUALS don’t get to speak. The court ruling just centralizes power in the hands if media companies rather than the government who already collude with those companies. Robbie should get off his high horse to wade into the comments section for some common sense. headline was a sucker punch.

[@GAMakin]

SO... ROBBIE the PITCH MAN has a NEW, SAME GENDER CATCHER., MAX(🤔?) BURNS(?). His hair is PERFECT (That Vintage 60s Prep School LOOK); above Black-rimmed Like-Period Spectacles, and a METICULOUSLY curried Beard. SWEET! Can't convince myself that he's NOT a BESPOKE Ai FABRICATION... A perfect partner for the IRASCIBLE ROBBIE -- a DYNAMIC DUO which will wander, hand-in-hand, into OBSCURITY when the plug is pulled, post-election, on fruitless Political BANTER. "Get it while you can" never struck closer to HOME.

[@JohnDoe-oj5it]

No bri? Thanks .I hear that she's College grad 😅definitely not in political science.

[@ThePzrLdr]

FB laughs at the court.

[@HomeEngineer-wm5fg]

@12:13 best comment in the whole video.

[@brb__bathroom]

mazel tov!

[@shigemorif1066]

Max and Robbie have great energy together even though they come from different POVs.

[@rhh3828]

Will the algorithms be changed then? Probably not…

[@fisherkieds6282]

Good,stop censoring swearing as well

[@memoryhero]

Max Burns is an effing stellar commentator and thinker.

[@CityGamer1337]

Why am I just hearing about this?

[@gametime2473]

Because mainstream news media is too busy running political propaganda to help Democrats

[@adancdego6339]

Does amyone miss the ranting girl?

[@doylecole]

This is a good start, but it will have to be revised after this election cycle! Dump Burns and bring back Bri!

[@LexrexSmith]

Hello

[@DavidDalrymple-df4eb]

Good co-host across from Rawbee

[@caldud2]

Bring back Briahna Joy Gray!

[@davidmc8475]

NO! She was terrible.

[@brandondelaney1815]

Bring Bri back

[@davidmc8475]

NO! She was terrible on the issues. She was the reason I stopped watching The Hill. When she was fired I came back.

[@TimParker-Chambers]

She was an absolute disgrace; I'm surprized she wasn't fired for screaming at Robby, I guess she finally reached a point of behavior where even her DEI powers couldn't save her 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ Good riddance to bad rubbish... 👍👍👍👍

[@The-House-Of-Kastrioti]

🇺🇸 Let's Go! 🗽 Trump 2024 🦅

[@stevelytle8023]

Spreading Trump's magat lies unabated. Return to the fairness doctrine. FDT

[@tygerlillee]

I hate to break it to you, but saying it is so doesn't work on anyone outside the protective media bubble. I do find it mind-boggling, though, how dems believe without question anything their media tells them, especially after the Biden fiasco.

[@JeannieHamilton-wm3cn]

So many good things coming out of Scotus