facebook not only knew about it but put it on paper. this woman had access to basically an internal wiki. something most people had access to. most people in the company at facebook continue to have access to. everyone at the company knows about this. that s what is troubling here is that the dangers of this company are known internally. facebook won t admit what specific dangers they are but say they need regulation until we even know what is under the hood there, we can t begin to make that regulation, i think, or even draft ideas that make a lot of sense. yeah, and they rely a lot on the free speech defense. they don t want to call free speech. they are letting a lot of this happen. let me let you listen to one more byte and she s talking about the specific effect on teenagers. let me let you listen to that. in the case of teen girls and
they said president trump didn t intend for his supporters to use violence. trump s statement, get them out of here, is protected by the first amendment. so is this is his free speech defense? yeah, obviously we think it s the right decision. and if you look at the history, there is no case decided by the supreme court or to my knowledge any other court that would allow a political candidate to turn an angry mom against peaceful protesters and say that s somehow protected by the first amendment. that s never been comp plated by any of our free speech juriss prudence. and those a reason those cases don t make it to the supreme court. and it s because they rarely happy. as i look at the political campaigns to have someone in the position where they re asking people to vote them in as leader of the free world and then to
i was completely taken back and not expecting that reaction at all. i was just really shocked, honestly. so lawyers for president trump claim the president didn t intend for them to use force and trump s statement get them out of here is protected by the first amendment. is this his free speech defense? yeah, no. obviously we think it s the right decision and if you look at the history of free speech jurisprudence, there is no case decided by the supreme court or any other court that would allow for a political candidate to turn an angry mob against peaceful protesters and say that s protected by the first