AUDIO: Supreme Court oral arguments over social media moderation rights 

Starts @19:57

Does this affect Truth Social?

Is social media a publisher or a public posting platform? No one else is allowed to be both.

"Anti-semites and their cats" is the next reality series available only on BET and THC.

Many verbal statements range in different levels. When there’s threats against things, and people, that’s the defining point but if it’s a distinctive thing that is remarked as unlawful,we obey our laws first. We have good freedoms, and there’s strains of situations in these times. People do speak in person with each other,having phones like we do open up conversations and comments of expression,There’s different grades of communications. Some sites aren’t full of too much expression, but politics open the gateway for opinions. It’s good to be reasonable, but as our world has related so much, having topics can be as wide as our world is. Individuality can be good but to find good reasons for expressions.

I do not believe the state should absolutely make it illegal for anyone of a specific age to use any form of media with a social/speech aspect, because the bill of rights does not apply to people based on age. This law would make it illegal for 16 year olds or younger to engage with anything on the internet that includes others like video games for example, etsy, etc. The first amendment is very specific and meticulous in what it applies to, and the state is overreaching its authority by being too broad in its regulation. If you decide that people cannot freely associate or practice freedom of speech until a certain age in such a broad way then it won't just apply to the internet, it would legally imply that there is a justification of regulating all forms of social interaction including off the internet for people of specific ages. We have the freedom to associate with whoever we choose and the government cannot prevent us from doing so. Anyone below the age of 16 could be subject to state regulations of who they can associate with or converse with. It creates a constitutional inconsistency because the government is doing the regulating, when businesses traditionally do the regulating within their own guidelines. They don't have the same limits that the government has in regards to regulating people. You do end up with some businesses that allow certain speech and association, and others that allow a different kind. There are businesses that specifically create environments suitable for kids, movies/books/games/music everything you can think of, but parents have to then only allow their kids access to this sort of content. Kids can use social media that has the regulations that their parents want, or can just not use media if their parents want them to not use it, but the government doesn't have a hand in that. I think this is a social contract situation where we as a society have to be responsible for our community and not look to the government to do that. I do think that the business class has become very powerful and influential, but I don't think this freedom of speech route will fix it. We have to work to demonopolize industry and move towards a (green) new deal in order to weaken that 1% that we seem to be unable to affect change to (the people who own these social medias for example). The freedom of speech amendment to the constitution does have some exceptions as to what the government can regulate in speech. This is why the state or federal government can create laws and regulations that may censure certain types of speech. The government has the right to censure/regulate: obscenity, fraud, child p*, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, commercial speech such as advertising, hate speech, defamation. Main thing to take away if tmi is that freedom of speech is not straightforward, and we do not have total freedom of speech - and that was intended by our forefathers who worked so tirelessly on the amendments to the constitution.

In the name of ‘Beloved Jesus The CHRIST’ GOD of all man has granted through the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSTITUTION the GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH! Everyone of the Supreme Court Members grew up with the same right and privilege, to free speech ! This Land is GODS Land, her People are GODS People !

I am sorry to her husband. He is a sweet kid and she is an unfaithful wife. Someone call Taryn and Claudia. Let them talk to her husband. I dont want to break that news to him. I cant bear to see him cry.

Love you guys. I am exhausted. Hitmen were looking for your kids last night.

Good morning. So. The pentagon owns Facebook and meta now, correct?

Bama tags. Stscy lashay was in the passenger seat.

NetChoice v. Paxton begins at 2:44:29

"I long for the day conservatives actually take their stupid social media laws all the way to SCOTUS and end up arguing against the pillars that citizens united stands upon." ~me 2021.

In bama.

Do you see what I see? Truth is an offense You silence for your confidence Do you hear what I hear? Doors are slamming shut Limit your imagination, keep you where they must Do you feel what I feel? Bittering distress Who decides what you express? Do you take what I take? Endurance is the word Moving back instead of forward seems to me absurd. Independence limited Freedom of choice is made for you, my friend Freedom of speech is words that they will bend Freedom with their exception--Metallica

All those in USA please find from your yellow pages the name of the Senator/Congressman/Congresswoman Of your constituency and an email and call the office get yourself recorded . Thanks. It is in reference to the sagacious timely and genuine concern moved, by Hon. Congressman Mr. Greg Casar and Hon. Congressman Mr. Wild, among you, the distinguished intelligentsia of our country. Please approve it strongly and continue to uphold the most cherished democratic values of the United States consequently establishing law and order in our ally nations like Pakistan to properly scrutinize, check and count for the election result forms (45 ) into authentic form (47) enforcing the voice of the people for the people. Your supporter from your constituency Your signature

FREE SPEECH ='S CONTENT MODERATOR LAY OFFS COMING SOON....LOL KISS THAT SIX FIGURE JOB GOOD BYE.... MASS LAYOFF

Big 3, expressive websites at 2:38:00, proves it all, she (against outline it was against top 3 Social Media websites) and not against the Etsy, Gmail, etc... Again, the topic is social media...

Can a person get on a phone and broadcast to the world? Social media is not a phone, unless it is person to person. The 3rd person issue with phones is hardly the same as social media.

….and I’m proud to be an American! Where atleast I know I’m free?

There should be more than one counsel asking these robes questions.

If any of these social media companies have or are taking government money, then, this violates our first amendment rights.

Global Awareness drive Peace campaign. Join our Peace campaign.

The female lawyer was such an poor communicator jeez. And she is always before the Supreme Court. I have not clue how.

Whatever happened to we must protection 230 At All Cost 😢

Lawyer b.s. 230 protects the carrier from liability resulting from speech of others. It is not to allow censorship.

RU-vid actively promotes certain content and shadow bans some content. that in itself is an opinion and abuse. For example RU-vid promotes videos that slander me and shadow bans my content and content that doesn’t slander me. I’ve experienced it. So yes there does need to be some regulation.

Etsy does not say they only want people to sell clothing!!! SHE SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEEN CORRECTED ABOUT HER LIE!!!

The times Prelogar put that creature Gorsuch in his place were the chef’s kiss highlights of these 4 hours.

freedom of speach..THAT SIMPLE!!!

I've listened to the first 50 minutes of this and Florida wasted these Judges time by bringing a frivolous lawsuit that even the lawyer said they scrambled to get together and didn't have time for any discovery. There were so many questions, with no concrete facts. Waste of time and money. I own a website and I pay for the hosting of my site. I get to decide what is on my site. However, I posted gardening tools on the site which is a gardening site. However, Google, Facebook, and Etsy banned my content because it was tagged by their bots as weapons (saws for pruning). I continually had to fight these bans until I gave up and took the sharp items off my site. I think the lawyer loses because social media does a good job of protecting the public based on their own rules.

The Israeli-American genocide of the children of Gaza will not be forgotten by history and will be recorded as the most horrific Holocaust of all time.

Could you imagine in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50s, 60’s, 70’s, 80s, 90’s and even early the 2000’s if the phone carriers were able to listen in on all calls and if they did not like what you said, they could disconnect the call for going against community guidelines. OUTRAGEOUS Draconian thinking. If those in control of the platform want to notify LEO’s, no problem. Leave free speech alone based on just like movie, song and even video content ratings. Policy based on verified age. ❤️✝️🇺🇸

What a waste of the court's time

It is truly pathetic the lack of understanding as to how social media functions exhibited by nearly all of the justices. Additionally, justice, Alito is simply rude for the sake of being rude. Can you imagine being one of his children?