Supreme Court hears arguments in case challenging Florida social media law | full audio

[@HopeExperience]

Glad to see these online for us to listen to than getting sound bites.

[@stevelangstroth5833]

If a social media website edits/deletes/bans, or is unequal in what speech is allowed, then it IS a publisher and needs to be, ITSELF, civilly liable for slander and libel. They can't have it both ways.

[@finalcountdown7658]

Exactly! That's the crux of the argument.

[@kamwickw933]

Since when do you have the right to FORCE a private company to publish whatever YOU want? What's really funny is that the people who want to spew their LIES on social media now think they should have the right to sue that same social media for not allowing their lies. Waste your money suing if you want, but you do realize that lawsuits always involve something called 'discovery', don't you?

[@mikeharper3459]

@@finalcountdown7658no it’s not - it’s so fundamentally not the crux of the argument you are either being deliberately obtuse or are are just, shall we say, intellectually unfortunate…

[@finalcountdown7658]

@mikeharper3459 Whether these social media outlets are acting as *Platforms* , which gives them certain legal protections, or as *Publishers* IS the crux of the argument. What these social media outlets are seen as by the justice will determine how they will rule. Try and keep up.

[@finalcountdown7658]

@kamwickw933 Well, let me enlighten you. There is a law that was enacted in 1996 and is the law (Section 230) of the land. That law protects a Platform from being sued and responsible for the information that others post on their website. As a "Platform" and to keep these protections, these social media must not behave like publishers or distributors. That means they CAN NOT cherrypick and treat different people's political ideas differently, or else they can be legally sued and liable for anything and everything users post on their website. That means if you upload false information to YT, YT and you could be sued of YT is seen as a publishers and not a platform. These social media outlets are acting like publishers but then claiming to be a platform.

[@stephenbrunner2543]

Difficult..who wants big Corps controlling what we say either especially when only a few dominate..

[@petyrbaelish1216]

We aren't controlling what you say we are controlling how you say it.

[@naiembarber1119]

@@petyrbaelish1216more like where your allowed to say it

[@petyrbaelish1216]

@@naiembarber1119 yeah go say it way over there where no one can here you.

[@naiembarber1119]

@@petyrbaelish1216 exactly you can talk about me however you want when your not on my property

[@petyrbaelish1216]

@@naiembarber1119 yeah get off KZbinrs yard.

[@Seedubya]

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

[@AuroraColoradoUSA]

Mutual blocking is the answer. But seems very few people get that. Everybody wants a slice of the power, nobody really wants to give it away to ordinary people.

[@truesonic669]

You can express your views but Facebook ect has the final say I don't think so. Dude just say it's censorship

[@petyrbaelish1216]

Oh yes we do boy.

[@yayayaokoksure]

KZbin has deleted about ten of my comments today on various topics. Even mentioning certain specific topics can trigger deletion. Its a problem.

[@matthewballon9948]

Same here

[@UnseemlyGenie00]

Same here

[@gund89123]

Then find a platform that lets you post what you want. KZbin has right to decide what’s hosted on their servers, it’s a business.

[@yayayaokoksure]

@@gund89123 I'm about tired of that quasi libertarian nonsense. FB and Google can actually sway elections. They actively engage in censorship of certain political ideas, censorship of one particular party. Or censorship of science at behest of the government. That immense power dwarfs any type of monetary contribution to a political campaign. It's actively destructive to humanity to allow companies to abuse such power especially when they actively collude with government to censor. This comment will probably be deleted.

[@yayayaokoksure]

@@gund89123 my thoughtful reply to you was deleted. Weird huh?

[@mariloubannon5874]

Require those who broadcast to identify speakers, and to make them liable for slander, just like newspapers and TV

[@hsjkfhjfoakhdh2842]

The thing is the people that make their livelihood spinning half-truths, or straight up lies, would be liable to being held accountable. And that's a problem for them.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

The power structure will never hold itself to account. So I guess we just do what they always do, blame the people for their treachery? Sound strategy...

[@unbreakable7633]

Writing anonymously was a critical part of the development of the American Revolution. Part of the protection of liberty even when it can also be abused. No perfect world and trying to make one is wrecking liberty.

[@unbreakable7633]

My comment about political writers during the American Revolution using anonymity was censored. Doesn't matter to your rights if tyranny is private or government, still tyranny.

[@beyondalpha1072]

WHAT NEWSPAPERS AND TV HAVE EVER BEEN HELD LIABLE LOL? ALL THEY DO IS LIE< HOW ABOUT COVID LOL?

[@cmvamerica9011]

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.

[@gund89123]

You have freedom now. First amendment doesn’t apply to everyone, just government.

[@mixmediaproductions]

Radio station employee can not openly go crazy expressing their thoughts. but, a person can write the radio station expressing the opinion they have.

[@milliegirl7514]

Some being downright radical and violent There are certain speeches that go against civil society which should be censured Misinformation, foul language and hate speech are the pretty obvious choices to be censured Not condoned in public so why should it be ok on any social media platform !?

[@yayayaokoksure]

FB is defined legally as a platform. Not a newspaper.

[@kamwickw933]

They are still a private company that has the right to regulate content.

[@yayayaokoksure]

@@kamwickw933 I like how dems become libertarian when it comes to censoring the opposition. You forget these companies worked directly with government to censor.

[@yayayaokoksure]

@@kamwickw933 my reply was censored. They worked directly with the feds to censor. This will probably be deleted too.

[@yayayaokoksure]

@@kamwickw933 Verizon is a Company. ATT is a company. They can't censor your phone calls. Though, they will sell the records to the government.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

lifelong, darpa, back doors to government.

[@FlipMacz]

Every single Justice worked their level best to gain clarity from this attorney, but he absolutely played dodge-ball at every single corner. I literally have no idea what he was peddling.

[@mixmediaproductions]

The electronic communications act was displayed on dial-in bulletin boards. The public needs to be made aware. That is all.

[@ccmzadv4879]

Man the Justices came hot out of the gates on this one. No way the government is not going to side with these companies - too much back scratching going on - these private entities not only make billions for the government, but provide vast amount of intelligence on people and organizations without having to deal with constitutional issues like the 4th amendment.

[@SandorWillis-f6q]

@PSALMS 95-97 Puncuation before comma, periods or question marks

[@truesonic669]

About time someone takes on these private companies

[@kamwickw933]

So, you believe you should be able to force them to publish anything? LOL.

[@Angel-ei1ip]

@@kamwickw933it isn’t them publishing it. It’s the user publishing it. They’re just the conduit for the original poster and the person viewing the post.

[@Guy-cb1oh]

@@Angel-ei1ip The First ammendment forbids the government from forcing, individuals or businesses to host another persons horrid speech.

[@godssara6758]

​@@Guy-cb1ohnope the First Amendment doesn't protect censorship

[@petyrbaelish1216]

​@@godssara6758 it doesn't protect government censorship, where in the first amendment doesn't it mention Internet platforms.

[@carolcarson7749]

Why are they not announcing Trumps future. There is no other case more important. Hopefully they already have a decision.

[@richardyoung5293]

they didnt know u wanted to know homie they will get back to u soon

[@ezrahmolina]

Bookmark - 55:00

[@dapv144]

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?

[@dapv144]

And obviously the rise of the use of fighting words as already ruled by the court. Hate speech that doesn't meet fighting words. Who determines what hate speech is? One man's lyric is another man's battle cry or profanity.

[@markgado8782]

Lol. I've had 24hr comment bans here on yt. Only thing in the comment, was a quote from the video with a question mark. The videos were OK. But not me quoting it. Rules for thee. I agree with your thoughts also.. 🤠👍​@@dapv144

[@naiembarber1119]

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.

[@americatolliver3294]

Just tell this lawyer ( your arguments are denied😊)

[@Seedubya]

If a platform censors it should take responsibility for what it doesnt

[@Cardinal-Roy-Davis]

"Putin's Cybermall"?

[@joanmalarkey7885]

Separation of church n state

[@dianahill5116]

Many religions don't want or like anyone to criticize, mock or investigate their religion and/or prove that they're lying.

[@piousthepious]

That phrase is not in the constitution and shouldn’t be

[@raquetdude]

The first minute is pure garbage and has no relationship to reality… it’s a viewpoint but one that’s not true…

[@SandorWillis-f6q]

Dewey won dewar decimal

[@rf4661]

How is this even up for argument? Are social media companies part of the government? No. Whom does the First Amendment disallow from restricting speech? The government.

[@ImmaTwoPops]

The problem is SM companies delete/ban some religious content as hate speech like those against gay marriage etc,content that goes against the government narrative like they did with COVID they got banned or deleted claiming “ misinformation “ when we now know a lot of those posts were correct,and when government clowns said hunters laptop was “ Russian disinformation “ they ran with that narrative also and banned/ deleted posts thereby promoting the government narrative.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

Have you ever heard of Lifelog? What do you think the real purpose of social media is lmfao

[@Moonninja420]

Privately owned public space.

[@kamwickw933]

@@Moonninja420 Privately owned, period. The fact that some people think it's a 'public' space is really funny.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

The fact you "think" it's private is even funnier.

[@harryureysr.120]

stop of editing and hiding content to keep people from knowing the TRUTH!

[@daved3549]

That's a naive statement.

[@finalcountdown7658]

​@@daved3549no, it is not

[@tomshahriari6602]

Truth? Very little is true or false and most people are so gullible they think anything someone who is well known says online must be true. The public lacks the ability to to think, consequently someone or something should temper the lies that permeate the internet.

[@finalcountdown7658]

@daved3549 No it's not

[@finalcountdown7658]

@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.

[@trevorallen3212]

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.

[@itbetru2229]

It's not very often I'd side with Florida lol

[@gund89123]

Why would you want government to control free speech? First amendment doesn’t apply to anyone other than Government.

[@mikeharper3459]

And this is certainly not one of those times lest you want the state government to control what you see on social media…

[@marianosantiniello2213]

​@@mikeharper3459lol exactly.

[@EntertainmentFilms26]

51:24

[@004-qh4wj]

Спасибо тебе за видос удачи тебе)

[@rebaser6172]

"Google censoring speech is free speech." Lol those Trump appointed "conservative" justices are really paying off!

[@adlaif9459]

Clarence Thomas sounds like a shill in audio only

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Miller Patricia Gonzalez John White Barbara

[@lbthingsstuffmore9513]

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.

[@finalcountdown7658]

That's NOT how things work exactly. If these "private companies" want to sensor views I assume *you* don't like and don't want anyone to see because you're not conservative, they need to be treated as a *publisher* and not a *platform* . They lose certain legal protections as a *publisher* which would allow others to sue companies for content users post on their website/app.

[@kamwickw933]

Yep. Pity that more folks can't see that simple truth.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

Do you know what corporatism is or do you just believe everything you're spoon fed from smiling PR agents?

[@HyattBludCleanupCrew]

Federal government should not grant them immunity from liable and slander laws. Pick a lane, they don't get to discriminate and have protection from the repercussions of that discrimination.

[@andrewvektor7346]

@HyattBludCleanupCrew ​​​​​yes, actually they can and do have it both ways. This is why Section 230 exists. It protects the platforms from being held liable (I.E. it protects them from being sued for slander/lible) over third-party content posted by its users, while also retaining their ability to safely moderate content posted on their platform. Without this protection, platforms would only have two options: turn a blind eye and allow anything and everything posted by users on their platform, or carefully vet and restrict all user generated content to avoid being sued for content posted by its users.

[@ehenningsen]

Florida is stupid

[@markgado8782]

No. You.

[@BruceLee-tq4is]

Viv GUY PHILIPPE.

[@CoolBreeze2016]

But what about trump!??? What a joke!!!

[@Pyrrhic.]

Russian and Chinese bots will love this Florida law.

[@lissainkd2580]

Supreme my foot , decision for hire is more like it.

[@cmvamerica9011]

Let Capitalism take care of it.

[@speaktruthfully3578]

This dude means CRONY capitalism.

[@igorlobkovenko9480]

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

[@dapv144]

Commerce vs expressive behavior. The restrictions on exchange of money or goods vs speech or ideas. One can be limited and regulated and one cannot.

[@thinktankdonahue]

No, Sherman jurisprudence applies to companies who raise prices or restrict output. Free websites don't meet that test.

[@cmvamerica9011]

If I own a media company, I get to determine what is printed.

[@finalcountdown7658]

Fair enough, but if you get to pick and choose what's printed, I and everyone else get to sue you for what you allowed to be published on your platform. A user posted a false video or story about Trump, I get to sue *you* for it because as the publisher, you are liable for what's being published.

[@kamwickw933]

@@finalcountdown7658 Please proceed. Most social media companies ARE taking down disinformation (also known as lies). If they don't flatter your Orange Idol enough, please do try to sue. Then enjoy the process referred to as "Discovery" 😆

[@Angel-ei1ip]

@@kamwickw933let’s flip it on it’s head. Let’s say someone posts a deepfake. Let’s say content moderation doesn’t censor it quick enough and it proliferates. That deepfake could hold you legally liable for defamation and impersonation. As deepfakes improve, it will get more and more difficult to catch over time. It really is an inevitable course.

[@rf8960]

@@finalcountdown7658 - I hear your concern, and I see why you’d want that ability to sue if you felt you were being silenced by a private platform. But then someone could sue you or someone else for posting false stories about your favorite politician or party. And then we can expand it to suing for harassing comments and content too! And we could sue the owners of social media companies when they post messages that we feel are one-sided and false too. This has no limit or end, and the lawyers will get very rich. That will very quickly devolve to a point where nobody publishes anything anymore because of the liability. Is that a better world?

[@susanclarke7477]

Nbnn MN NM, nn n b n BMW nn b b MN n MN b n5 MN, nn

[@mikeharper3459]

Time for Crooked Clarence and Witch Finder Alito to retire…

[@leahgary1107]

Social media is a tool that is a concern for national security. Social media needs to be censored and moderated simply because they can be a threat to national security.

[@BornAgainAdam]

Your comment is a concern for national security.

[@carolcarson7749]

I said when the internet launched yrs ago. One of the things we will need is internet police. It was just a thought back then.

[@richardyoung5293]

what kind of argument is this it is Orwellian

[@BornAgainAdam]

@@carolcarson7749Thought police.

[@leahgary1107]

@@BornAgainAdam No. It's not. 🙄

[@godssara6758]

Only a leftist would actually try to argue that the 1St Amendment protects the right to censor 😂

[@petyrbaelish1216]

This is my soap box and you are not allowed to use it.

[@JohnDoe-x4f]

WEF SAID, there number 1 enemyvis freedom to speak

[@gund89123]

You need to read constitution. First amendment “government can’t” It doesn’t say a business/corporation can’t

[@OB-yz7db]

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!

[@speaktruthfully3578]

Playing the left/right false paradigm blame game gets no one anywhere. If this comment section is only partially representative of the general population we are way passed doomed...

[@OB-yz7db]

remember when conservatives were sooo frightened of “big brother” they thought the government could listen to their thoughts through the tv? turns out they LIKE the idea… they just don’t want it used against them… you and me? fair game!

[@OB-yz7db]

for those who need a “but hilary” to make them feel good about themselves… remember when liberals led the charge to start banning books by getting mark twain- the abolitionist- “canceled” as a racist?

[@speaktruthfully3578]

What does that even mean? ANYONE who weaponizes things against a person without due cause is a POS, regardless of political party.

[@MBNHedger]

That this argument is literally going the other direction shows how little you understand what is happening here. The state laws are attempting to regulate the social media platforms AWAY from limiting what can be said on their platforms and who can say it. It is the corporations attempting to claim they have a right to editorialize the content on their sites as a function of expression.