i know what you thinking. kat, that has numbers in it. ew, gross. if i cared about triple digit numbers, i look at ratings for cnn. [laughter] but if this law goes away, it could destroy the internet as we know it. but don t worry, joey. porn will still be available, so you won t lose her second job. get it? you thought i was saying he likes porn, but i m saying he is in porn. thank you for your service. [laughter] so, this week the supreme court heard two cases from families who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks, and those families are suing social media companies, alleging they should be held liable for helping isis. when case involved the 2015 paris attacks. it argued that youtube s algorithms recommended isis propaganda to users. the other case claimed twitter gave isis assistance and didn t do enough to police them from sharing content. and that is where section 230 comes in. it is a short law written in 1996 that is said to have created the internet. it goes like t
something that needs to be adjusted. if you go push out hate speech or go after a group because you don t agree with their beliefs, you should be accountable for that. so maybe you don t get to sue twitter, but the ceos who sat around deciding we don t want to hear what johnny joe he has to say because he works for fox, they should be held liable. let s split the diff, know what i m saying? 231. and i m sorry i was high. [applause] kat: judge, you are a judge, and jeanine: i guess an angry one! kat: what joey says, the law doesn t allow anything, so that s a good point you bring up and a lot of people are saying you need to amend it or add something else. what do you think will happen here? jeanine: the problem with section 230 is that it doesn t provide protection for certain people. let me explain what i mean by