The oral argument is one hour d inutes. Hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso e speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challenges Government Actions affecting its own speech. Two states and five individuals are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not shown an imminent threat at the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in particular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The courts entered a universal,h about any content. Even apart from the article three problem, that injunction rests on two errors. The fifth circuit ra
Will be hearing oral argument in murthy versus missouri, a case on federal Government Officials communicating with social Media Companies about content mediation policies and whether it amounts to government suppression or speech censorship. This oral argument will begin shortly. You are watching live coverage here on cspan. We will hear argument first this morning, case 23 411. Esther fletcher. Mr. Fletcher the government may not use corso threat to suppress speech but it is entitled the speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challenges Government Actions affecting its own speech. Two states and five individuals are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not shown an imminent threat that the governmen
Respects but the king as well. You cap tur too captured it so perfectly. And it is a jovial moment, people making friends in the cue, but certainly, this is one of those poignant moments that shows you, this is what it is all about for people. We are still in this 10day period of mourning. I was just near westminster palace, before the king and of course, his siblings stood vigil there, and the vin, Vigil Of Princes, a stoic position, and you could hear a pin drop, and everybody waiting for a catch to catch a glimpse, and one of the places theyre cueing now, there is a cue for the cue for the filing behind me in Southern Park this morning and at the time they werent letting anybody in, because it was at capacity, and the sign actually said, from this point, you will be waiting at least 14 hours, be prepared. And despite that, there were throngs of people coming in droves with smiles on their faces, with backpacks, small bags ready to be in for the long haul and i spoke to one person wh
The oral argument is one hour and 45 minutes. Chief Justice Roberts we wl hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso threat to suppre sech but it is entitled the speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizinprate speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuaonnd coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challees Government Actions affecting its n eech. Two states and five individus are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. Th pblem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not owan imminent threat that the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in paicular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The courts entered a universal injunction restricting speech about any content. Enpart from the art
The oral argument is one hour and 45 minutes. Chief justice rober will hear argument first is morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso threat tsuress speech but it is entitled the speed for itself i informing, persuading or cricing private speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between peuasion and coercion. This is not a typical student where a spkechallenges Government Actions affecting its own speech. Two states and five diduals are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they he t shown an imminent threat that the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in particular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do th responses. The courts entered a universal injunction restricting speec about any content. Even apart from the