They have to keep it separate in their mind. Issue a ruling. This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also excludes websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thing thats different is that in some respects this statute operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. And of course when governments do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also
The Supreme Court also heard oral argument in another case that questions whether states can restrict content moderation on social media. The justices will have until june to will on this case. This comes out of florida. It is about 2 1 2 hours. We will hear argument next in case 22 555 netchoice versus paxton. If it may please the court, i dont want to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument. Let me focus on whats different about paxton. One thing that is different is its definition of social media platforms excludes websites. We can put the gmail issue to one side for talking about texas. The other it excludes is websites that are primarily focused on news sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the many reasons this is spatially unconstitutional. The other different is in some respects this statute operates were simply because it forbids my clients from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. We are use
Cooperateo proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats dferent about texas. One thing thats different abxas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. Wean put the gmail issue to one side when lkbout texas. It also excludes websitesor and. In the First Amendmentusess we call that contentbased discrimination. Thatsnef the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thg thats different is that iso respects this statute operates more simply because it f clines from engaging iviewpoint discrimination. Were edo thinking that viewpointiscrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. Do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers enga in viewpoint discrimination that is their first amendntight. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpot neutral that means suicideyou have materials that prevention you also haveo ve materials that advocate suicide promotion. Or if yo
This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argume so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social med platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also cles websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the fstmendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute i unconstitutional. Thother thing thats different is that in some respects this stut operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thi a the government shouldnt dot. And of course when govnmts do it it is a bad thing. When editors ofpeers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpoint neut
We wl hear an argument this morning in case 22 138, counterman vsus colorado. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Chief justice and may please the court. The court has long held that because of the importance of free speech in our country, categorical exception to the content regulation must be well defined narrowly limited. Speech cannot be exempted wiout proof of a long set of tradition without subjecting thatpeech to regulation. The state has not come close to meeting its burden without burden of punishing without proothe speaker knew the statement would cause fear. Where this Court Reversed convictions for cross burning. And series of opinions emphasizing the central importance intent plays in making threats actually subscribe. Where the state predicts harm it has shown no difference in criminal enforceme or the availability of civil protective orders and many jurisdiction that is already requires subjective intent. There, prosecutors prove mens rea the same way they always have und criminal statutes t