LIVE: Supreme Court considers limits on federal response to controversial online posts

Listen to the oral arguments over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts, and a separate case on whether a New York official violated the First Amendment by pressuring entities not to do business with the NRA.
#socialmedia #facebook #instagram #SCOTUS #freespeech #unitedstates #news #live #nra

[@jessebrogan8178]

Freedom of speech belongs to the people, not to the government. Any interference by elected or employed federal operatives is violation of their oath of office.

[@maq989]

Yet, I’m willing to bet you’re A-OK with banning books in public schools and libraries.

[@205Raven]

The issue lies in the evolving definition of the word "patriot" within our generation. While our grandfathers spoke of their obligations to the country, emphasizing words like "duty," today's so-called patriots often use terms like "entitled." One generation begins sentences with "we have the right to," while the other commenced with "we have the responsibility to."

[@Alie182]

@@maq989no one is banning books!

[@tgijukebox3401]

Does one justify the other?@@maq989

[@biggoards2772]

​@@maq989 If it's decided by the people and the books are being moved (not banned) like you misinterpreted, than yes.

[@MauricioMoreno-fz4oo]

3:45 Start

[@Steve-om4iu]

Thank you

[@Racercat]

Thank you!

[@davidbrownlee927]

Imagine being this attorney standing straight faced in front of us supreme Court arguing for censorship of free speech. Just goes to show how people are willing to sell their soul for a buck. You will surely be remembered in history.

[@TammieHanenburg]

Welcome to the new world order??? What's Next?

[@tomlester8681]

The problem is... if the government wouldn't tell it to us publically, they shouldn't be telling big tech (or anyone else) privately.

[@DoYourLabsDoThis]

This attorney has had mean things said to him his entire life I bet. Hence his support for squashing speech. He doesn’t want anyone to say anything mean ever unless it comes from him.

[@AmberCox85]

No one can tell us what we can talk about .. f the gov

[@tomlester8681]

If it's so important to our protection, why can't the government just tell us directly? Why does it have to be done behind closed doors and under threat?

[@Penny526]

💯

[@danielduerst5067]

Power corrupts and absolute power will absolutely corrupt, so better not give to mush power to any entity other than us.

[@CrowCreekOutdoors]

It was coercion on the federal government’s part.

[@missdee5169]

No, no, no the federal government “persuaded” social media …lol

[@ryancole389]

Let’s argue the facts. Not hypotheticals.

[@bricbloc]

Hypotheticals are extremely useful tools when making legal decisions. The specific facts should be central, but you also need to consider hypotheticals in order to understand what the ramifications of a decision will be.

[@gregknittel5761]

The government cannot use coercion or pressure on an outside of government entity that will lead to actions the government itself cannot by law perform. Listening to the questioning of the plaintiffs by this court is highly disturbing. Basically by following their line of questioning to its ultimate conclusion infers that in order for the plaintiffs to establish damage to their absolute 1st amendment rights the government must be caught red handed through communications talking not only about a specific individual but also that these communications about said individual or individuals must be accompanied by a specific threat of action against the companies these government agency wish to persuade into action?!?! If this is how coercive government action is interpreted the court is essentially saying the government is free to abridge any speech or rights it deems necessary as long as it only vaguely threatens these companies with the awesome practically unassailable powers of the largest government in the history of the world! The way this court and frankly every court has morphed from a institutional check and balance against the awesome authority of an out of control federal government into what can only be described as a yes man, there only to confirm the tyrannical government’s ability to constantly and continuously encroach on the rights of its citizens through vaguely defined laws and case standards that are lumped in with a general problem that have very little if any credence with the problems or questions before them is absolutely horrifying! The courts purposely should almost automatically be viewed favorably through the lense of the private citizen or entity requiring the government to prove undoubtably through either law or precedent that they clearly fall within the absolute rights the government possesses!! Instead over the course of decades of institutional capture and partisan nominations our court system has inevitably flipped this essential and fundamental fact so that those who bring redress are wholly burdened with proving absolute harm from whatever government entity they bring their grievances against. This is certainly not how the founders envisioned our courts system operating!! The burden of proof as to why the governments actions is not or hypothetically may not lead to damage must always be placed at the upon the federal government to prove not the other way around! PERIOD! Instead we(the citizens)have found ourselves put against the automatic assumption of rights of the government in scenarios that would make the story of David and Goliath blush! If the government thinks certain speech or information is problematic it has the biggest pulpit in the entire history of civilization to stand behind and sincerely make that argument directly to the American people in order to persuade them! It cannot however make these arguments or persuasions in back room deals with unaccountable big tech companies free from the public eye to be instituted in ways unknown and unbeknownst to the American public it is solely accountable to!!!! This is not a hard decision full of innuendo and nuance it is a clear cut violation of Americans unalienable 1st amendment rights done in secret back room communications in order to shield these decisions from public scrutiny and leave victims with an practically impossible way to prove their grievances!!!!!! The way the court in this case and questioning has automatically assumed the government processes this right that has not been explicitly given to them either through existing congressional law or the constitution itself is a absolute and complete inversion of justice!!

[@refrigeratormagnet1680]

The biggest problem with online things, is what exactly constitutes a public forum vs what is a a private forum. For example is reddit a public place? I go for -- A public forum is any place where you are required to identify yourself, and is not dedicated to the advancement of a view, ie religious sites, commercial sites. Things like social media, news, open forums etc would fall into the scope of public. Online Public forum would be analogous to the blue check users of any social media app. In this way, the public and the users would have a layer of protection from bots and AI, and a responsibility and consequences of their speech, therefore deserving of protections.

[@shmeet]

_________________Why is the name of this case nowhere in the description or title?!

[@davidfirnhaber7792]

To keep us misinformed

[@blueyedevil3479]

How about they worry about ILLEGAL posts, instead of worrying about “controversial” posts. “Controversial” is subjective to a person’s thoughts and feelings, which are continually becoming weaker and more susceptible to being upset and “hurt”. Im not even gong to start on the fact that a DEI appointed Supreme Court “Justice” doesnt even know what the purpose of the Constitution as a whole is, what the Bill of Rights protects, and what specifically, who FIRST AMENDMENT is for and what it protects and who it protects from whom….

[@fredgarvinMP]

🎯

[@user-vh5kf4ll1r]

Stop paying these people. Stop paying taxes

[@peoplez129]

Soto's logic is basically this scenario: 1 guy in a crowd says something, another guy in the crowd says "I agree!" and says the same thing. Then the government silences both of them, but tells the second guy "We're not violating your free speech, because your speech was something the other person said". It completely ignores the fact that even parroting speech is an integral part of a persons right to free speech. The logic they are using to try to get around this fact is quite appalling.

[@torturedsoul8066]

Are we being slow walked to accept communism?

[@fredgarvinMP]

Neo-feudalism.

[@kentkurt9065]

When the gov thinks we are not smart enough to know what’s going . What needs to happen we need to be told the truth !

[@kentkurt9065]

If some one make threats I can assure you they will have someone knocking on their door!

[@robbyashley3167]

This is unbelievable that just because a twist of word usage and a specific context of word usage leads to broad interpretative meaning that allows the undermining of the constitution. If the supreme Court was interested in seeing the constitutionality of the outcomes of these recent years, they might want to look up the most recent updates to the US Code in relation to the supreme Court and separation of powers it implies. If your reading this please go to the webpage for the US Code and look it up and read a bit... you might be surprised by what it says and is "Constitutional" nowadays...

[@danielgandara2669]

Don’t tell my MTV what to say

[@CynthiaJohnsonAcj]

35:09 censorship in America goes on constantly.

[@lincolnstovall9471]

Discrimination and strong-arming against the disabled!!! Public companys!!!

[@rfborden4854]

We are a constitutional republic, we are not a constitutional democracy. Government lawyers seems to be wrong here?

[@talk3194]

We are only a republic if we can keep it. How do we keep it? A democratic process called voting!

[@johndoe-ss9bz]

We are a de-facto Corporate Republic in reality.

[@rfborden4854]

Correct but that is not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.

[@mjells79621]

There is this really neat Venn Diagram with a big circle called democracy and the "Constitutional Republic" that is within the US Constitutions framework includes "us" voting, includes all of us above 18 years of age having a say on who represents us, that sounds like it lies within that Venn diagram's big circle.

[@chiefztwish-ztwishwindeater]

The ideal of a Democratic Republic is Universal Equality, where a Constitutional Republic is focused on Individual Liberty. The USA being the latter. Our tyrannical govt has worked tirelessly to convince you that we are a democracy.

[@trevorandre746]

Let the guy talk Keagan

[@HRPFayetteville]

Yeah, why can't they?Just if they can find the accounts and find the post, why can't they post on the post and say Hey, this is AFB I here is a correct information.This is our point and this is what we believe to be true.We believe this other information is inaccurate boom bam there you go

[@davidfirnhaber7792]

So... Only they can create controversy? What will we lose next?

[@trevorandre746]

Every freaking time the lawyer try’s to finish his point the females cut him off

[@ryancole389]

Selective illiteracy is a bad look for a justice. Did she read the case?

[@willshepherd4544]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to LIMIT the Government, NOT the People.Yet, I have no faith that the Supremely Useless Court will side with the Constitution.

[@LReno-di9cm]

Hot bench

[@renereed3023]

It's called free speach.

[@renereed3023]

These peoples will just use another form of coms.Perhaps blaming the platform is simply not worth the 1st ammendment?

[@renereed3023]

Where is the transcript?

[@renereed3023]

Govt. has no business in free speach.

[@oilsmokejones3452]

My question would have been what evidence of reputational injury is there...because there is none..

[@chrisshergie1030]

that has nothing to do with anything anyone is talking about. thanks for playing. not a defamation case its a free speech case. if your speech or someone you want to hear's speech is censored, you are injured

[@oilsmokejones3452]

@@chrisshergie1030 You weren't listening then..it was very definitely an issue raised by defense and questioned by justices..try paying attention and try to keep up..

[@fredgarvinMP]

@@oilsmokejones3452 Why are you anti-free speech?

[@oilsmokejones3452]

@@fredgarvinMP My apologies that my comment goes over the head of so many key board troglodytes who probably didn't even listen to the hearings..

[@fredgarvinMP]

@@oilsmokejones3452 nobody likes you.

[@sburkhead2626]

Who’s the attorney? Remember him always

[@fredgarvinMP]

Which one?

[@ronmccombs9133]

''Overbearing the platforms will''!! its called 230.

[@breadfan1071]

I'm sure the "founding fathers" would be fine with knowing we have the technology yet these cowards won't show their faces when handling our business.

[@renereed3023]

Liable for harmful lies.

[@sburkhead2626]

Don’t know what it means ? Look up word in dictionary! Most AMERICANS CAN FIGURE THIS IUT AND A JUDGE HAS NO CLUE! ……… it’s laughable

[@gund89123]

Federal officials asking social media sites to delete information is bad. Trump to Twitter/X: I don’t like this tweet about me, please delete it 😮

[@fredgarvinMP]

That's the limit of what you've been able to absorb from this case, I bet.

[@JLK_Yo]

I couldn't believe what I read with my own eyes, now, I can't believe what I'm hearing with my own ears. You just removed any doubt about your intentions with the Nick Clegg comment. Give yourselves a hand.

[@JLK_Yo]

Do some people need a scripture reading from the James Church?

[@JLK_Yo]

I think they added some new members.

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

Has Donala Trump inside jail NATO countries Send details sentence to Donald Trump Arunava Dasgupta Next president of India 19.04.2024

[@HRPFayetteville]

Oh, you just talked about what they're doing to Donald Trump.Take you to person and go in and try to find crimes

[@memback]

KZbin removes my comments about Bidens mental capability.

[@RealRocdad]

Donald is the one with dementia

[@tonyj3189]

I SEE THIS ATTORNEY AS A TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

[@ImmersiveGamingLLC]

WHERE IS CLARENCE THOMAS'S RV that his billionaire buddy bought for him?