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

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

Рет қаралды 44,391

2 ай бұрын

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
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News KZbin channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com

Пікірлер: 107

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

When did "misinformation" become a valid legal concept?

@LeftofTube 2 ай бұрын

Who gets to decide misinformation? Unpopular speech is the speech that needs protecting not popular (mainstream media/US government approved) speech. This is the foundation of the 1st Amendment.

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

@@LeftofTube I completely agree.

@mangos2888 Ай бұрын

How about things that are not true? In this case it's lies about vaccines and the election being stolen. If it's not true, it's misinformation. @@LeftofTube

@CalvinNoire Ай бұрын

Misinformation is very valid, what do you mean? Even if it's objectively wrong, It still is, part of Free Speech. And that is the 1st Amendment.

@Razor2048 2 ай бұрын

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.

@zanefourney745 2 ай бұрын

Louder for the people in the back. Including, 'or else we'll send in some inspectors to find reasons that will put you out of business.'

@Razor2048 2 ай бұрын

In most cases, the or else doesn't need to even be said. For example, in most states police are not allowed to request your ID unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, yet it is common for people to get an ID request based on hunches and no evidence of a crime. The vast majority of people will comply with those requests and questions when as officer asks to see ID. Given that, what are the odds that those same people will comply with a request to see ID if a random stranger off the street asked to see ID, but was not in a law enforcement position. An officer doesn't need to say or else, and in those cases, the individual can refuse, and assert their rights, and be free to go, but to most that will not be clear, and an officer can use a lack of clarity to their advantage. They can simply do the big ask, and let your mind wander through various layers of fear. In many of those audit the audit style videos, it for the few that initially refuse, many will reverse their refusal if engaged further where an officer tries to get the individual to answer if they are really sure that want to go through with refusing. The or else does not need to be explicit. Think along the lines of a mugger, where they won't outright tell someone to give up their phone, instead they (often with a few friends), will walk up to someone, make it obvious that they are in a group, and they will ask if they can see or borrow your phone. No "or else" is given, but the victim will likely be imagine an "or else" at that moment, and will be likely to let the individual borrow the phone permanently.

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

Excellent analogies.

@mangos2888 Ай бұрын

That doesn't sound like the arguments at all

@Razor2048 Ай бұрын

@@mangos2888 Listen for the core of their arguments. They were unable to defend their communications with the social media companies, thus they instead turned to arguing that they weren't forcing them to censor or ban users, they were just asking and pressuring them to voluntarily take the desired actions. They then tried to equate their actions to be similar to any other random person asking a company to do something or change a policy. Thus in their eyes, the FBI pressuring someone to do something is no different from a random unknown person off the street trying to tell a company to do something. The thing is that it doesn't work that way in reality as history has proven it. How if it that there were cases in the past where police officers were charged with rape after that asked a woman to have sex with them while on duty? In those cases, the officer was not commanding them, they were just asking in a pressured way, and the woman could have said no, they just didn't. Ultimately it comes down to differences in power and capabilities that will influence how someone responds to a request. Supposed you purchased a new smartphone, and a 5 year old kid walks you if he or she can have your phone, how likely are you to refuse the request to give your new phone away? Now suppose the leader of a major cartel and with him are 500 armed cartel members but they are not pointing their weapons are you in that moment, and he asks you to give him your new phone, how likely are you to say no? In both cases you are being asked to give your new smartphone away. The government's logic is that you would be equally likely to refuse the request of the 5 year old kid, as you would be to refuse the request of the cartel leader surrounded by his armed cartel members. Consider how work place sexual issues are handled in cases where a boss tries to pressure an employee for sex, even if there is no thread for retaliation if the worker says no, it is still not allowed and the government can step in and punish the boss. Their entire premise is reliant on separating the words said from the organization saying the words, as they cannot defend or explain away the words, thus their entire goal was to say that the companies could have easily said no, just like they can say no to anyone else, and it doesn't matter who is asking.

@petecharleston6484 2 ай бұрын

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

@mangos2888 Ай бұрын

Persuasion isn't bullying. And many parents do allow their kids to bully others because they fight teachers and refuse to see that "little Liam" is an asshole

@thecincinnatiryans 2 ай бұрын

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.

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

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

@stuff8195 2 ай бұрын

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

@mangos2888 Ай бұрын

Then maybe there just isn't a strong case

@darrynwilliams9360 2 ай бұрын

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.

@addex1236 2 ай бұрын

Because in America we were founded on the belief that a government doesn't grant someone anything and an individual should be the ulitmate authority on that individual safety and well being for better and worse. The United state constitution was made as a specific reminder that as people we were borne with the right to speak free without the government having any say in at all.

@darrynwilliams9360 2 ай бұрын

@@addex1236 thanks for the reply. Curious to know your thoughts on government’s role, if any, in moderating the effects of inflammatory speech on society.

@rhyslucero1400 2 ай бұрын

It's because our Rights are absolute. In that the government is absolutely prohibited from making laws that limit our specific Rights. The Rights are Amendments that LIMIT government authority. They are actually Rights to be free from the Federal government making laws to limit our access to these protected forms of action. They aren't positive rights, they are negative authorities permanently ensconced in the Constitution and apply to the government, not the citizens. So the question is, can the Government make laws that fetter my rights without making laws that violate the prohibition? If they can, maybe that is the limit of my rights.

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

@@darrynwilliams9360 The text of the First Amendment says the government is not even allowed to abridge our rights of free speech.

@darrynwilliams9360 2 ай бұрын

@@fredgarvinMP this is what I found online for the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I don’t read read in that that government can’t limit the right unless I’m missing something?

@mariestewart7352 2 ай бұрын

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

@manicmadpanickedman2249 2 ай бұрын

Lol hypothetically wouldn't the construct of the constitution just simply be your beliefs in the contract and or treaty between individuals and generalized consensus and your organization around said contractual stipulations via manufactured consent because you never gave your consent Regardless they take it upon themselves to make you subject to their customs.. aka traditions of paternalism and self-righteous self-righteousness and ignorance ..... which would have been set by the original trend setter Aka original/thinker In this case that would be some book or letter/parchment That was litteraly written aka dictated/depicted/exclaimed by some guy that died 200 years ago 😂😂😂 And people still say "get with the times" 😂😂😂🎉 And I'm like "What ever history freaks 😂😂 "History geeks great. Aka.(knowledgable, cultured, and understanding, provable,power to the truth....) "History freaks bad...... Aka .(corrupt aka opressive power/tyranny/half truth) Your history... whos writting it you or somebody else ????. Also, if going around living the philosophy and doing the same thing That some guy did 200 years ago That has not brought us any closer to joy or satisfaction or elation Than what exactly have we become as a species ?? What are you evolving or moving twards ??? And if that stuff brought us the messed up world of today Then what,?? do you think That living another 200 years of the same unoriginal broken thinking processes or unfounded /Ill-fated philosophies is going to do ..???? make the world better or worse ???? Using now as a standard on which way things seem to be heading .... Tip don't follow 😂😂😂

@Geno79 2 ай бұрын

@@manicmadpanickedman2249 who will even read all of what you wrote?

@gottogo8675 2 ай бұрын

Discrimination is a god given human rite

@JayneTheory 2 ай бұрын

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.

@Geno79 2 ай бұрын

Compel the platform? Like tell the platform what they think is a "fact." Nope! Let the wise and discerning decide for themselves truth vs. error, not a bunch of hacks in the government.

@mangos2888 Ай бұрын

That's even stronger government intervention than what they're doing now

@mariestewart7352 2 ай бұрын

First amendment needed better council!

@p11111 2 ай бұрын

He sounded very young

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

He was awful.

@JayliFlynn 29 күн бұрын

27:34 dude sounds well informed

@fredgarvinMP 2 ай бұрын

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

@petecharleston6484 2 ай бұрын

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 2 ай бұрын

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

@henrywright6565 2 ай бұрын

1:02:41 1:18:22

@TheBLACKISHKRACKER 2 ай бұрын

25? Comments?

@RobertTanguay 2 ай бұрын

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

@zhesu8798 2 ай бұрын

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