much the traffic is higher on twitter, it might be, no way for us to know. i think there is a quiet hunger that people have for free speech and open debate. and one of the few forums today that actually do get diverse audiences and diverse voices together on a similar platform. i think that s as much as people might complain about it, bill, a competitive advantage this platform has going for it. i just want to see elon continue to stick to his north star of operating this as a free speech platform rather than substituting his own value judgments or political centrist value judgments. some of the statements concern me, look, maybe we don t want extremists on the far left or the right on the platform. i think that is just a different model of censorship, not quite operating as a free speech platform, so i think he s made statements that both are consistent with operating as a free speech platform and also take this more centrist approach to censorship and i think he ll be most successf
big tech is a big part of ou lives, but some companies like google and twitter exceed their boundaries making value judgments about content and mor heavily censoring conservative groups furd learn green has taken a closer look at why fait based groups clash with youtube. if a religious organization questions behind the possible link between abortion and cancer , but big tech canceled it . how do you explain the causa mechanisms that people have hypothesized about this. whether or not there is legitimate resource, youtube deemed the topic not up for discussion and this video into others like it from its platfor for it. it has been decided by somebody somewhere at this is
that. and sometimes, we say our hands are tied because of that case so we re not going to engage on these very complicated arguments about value judgments and predictive judgments so, i think it s right that just blaming it on the supreme court can often be an easy way to avoid more complicated and nuanced disputes. john, you and kate make the case, a very sound case, that heller does not tie the hands of the legislature. and so what would be some constitutionally sound law that could be enacted? you know, donald trump, i believe, banned bump stocks but there s still loopholes where people can get around that. what about high-capacity high-capacity magazines, banning a federal ban on that? what are some examples of laws that would still be constitutionally sound? so, there s no question that all of those proposals would not violate heller. now, the supreme court is probably going to have to face a
law as it was understood when written, not made new law or simply fill in vaccuum. those who share that view think that under our constitution, congress and not the federal courts are given the authority to make law and to set policy. now, there are others who believe that the courts should make policy. they believe in a so-called living constitution. they think the constitution s text and structure don t limit what a judge can do. to them, deciding what the constitution means is really a, quote unquote, value judgment. under that approach, judges can exercise their own independent value judgments. one of the leading advocates for this approach explained that as a judge, you, quote, reach the
supposed to interpret the law as understood when written, not make new law or simply fill in vacuums. those of us who share that view think that under our constitution congress and not the federal courts are given the authority to make law and to set policy. now there are others who believe that the courts should make policy. they believe in a so-called living constitution. they think that the constitution s text and structure don t limit with a judge can do. to them deciding what the constitution means is really a, quote unquote, value judgment. under that approach, judges can exercise their own independent value judgments. one of the leading advocates for this approach explained that as a judge, you, quote, reach the