国产三级大片在线观看-国产三级电影-国产三级电影经典在线看-国产三级电影久久久-国产三级电影免费-国产三级电影免费观看

Set as Homepage - Add to Favorites

【khmer woman sex video】Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship

Source:Feature Flash Editor:hotspot Time:2025-07-03 03:10:35

The khmer woman sex videoSupreme Court is trying to decide how far the First Amendment reaches when it comes to social media.

On Monday, the nine justices heard a pair of cases that question if states can force social media platforms to abide by censorship rules — even when the platforms deem those posts hateful or otherwise objectionable. Here's what we know.

SEE ALSO: US Supreme Court warns of dangers of AI in legal profession

Which cases did the Supreme Court hear?

A relatively recent pair of laws in Texas and Florida were passed in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The laws argued that social media companies were censoring conservative users on their platforms and limited the avenues that social media companies can take concerning moderating content on the site. 


You May Also Like

"Freedom of speech is under attack in Texas," Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said when he signed the bill into law in 2021. "There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas."

Two trade groups representing social media platforms have challenged the laws, from an appeals court up to the Supreme Court. Neither state is allowed to fully enforce the law yet, but it all depends on how the Supreme Court eventually rules. 

"There is nothing more Orwellian than the government trying to dictate what viewpoints are distributed in the name of free expression," Matt Schruers, the president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group for social media companies, told NPR. "And that's what's at issue in this case."

Schruers said that these social media companies need to have "guidelines and terms of use to make sure that a community isn't polluted." Without being able to do their own content moderation, the industry argues, social media sites will be forced to publish more misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, allowing more sinister activity can take place online. "And that's everything from posting dog pictures in the cat forum to barbeque in the vegan forum to far more serious things like trying to groom children in a children's site."

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

Why is this so important?

Some legal experts argue that this is the most important First Amendment case in this generation. As Chief Justice John Roberts said during the hours-long arguments, "I wonder, since we're talking about the First Amendment, whether our first concern should be with the state regulating what, you know, we have called the modern public square?"

Basically, the judges are deciding whether the government should tell social media companies what they can or can not put on their platforms, or if social media companies are responsible for that alone. 

"Just as the government couldn’t force Benjamin Franklin to publish its preferred messages in his newspapers, Florida and Texas can’t force websites to curate, display, and spread their preferred content," Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a press release. "The First Amendment protects us and our speech from government encroachment — not the other way around. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

The state argues that social media platforms are actually currently censoring users — and that is a First Amendment violation on its own. 

"The platforms do not have a First Amendment right to apply their censorship policies in an inconsistent manner and to censor and deplatform certain users," Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker told the justices Monday, according to NPR.

The justices are going to help categorize social media, which is a lot more difficult than it sounds. Is Facebook basically like a phone company, where no one gets filtered or censored? Or is it a newspaper, where information is curated and edited and rely on the protection of the First Amendment? Or, as Justice Alito said, is it neither?

In short: This Supreme Court ruling could decide the fate of free speech on the internet as we know it.

Which social media platforms does this cover?

That's kind of confusing, and even the justices aren't sure. It seems like it definitely covers sites like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X — but what about Uber or Venmo? We don't really know, but the Supreme Court will likely rule on the biggest social media platforms.

When will the Court give their answers?

The Supreme Court typically hands down their decision over the summer, before the last day of the Court's term. They could rule earlier, but don't hold your breath.

Topics Facebook Instagram Social Media X/Twitter Politics Meta

0.1647s , 14304.0625 kb

Copyright © 2025 Powered by 【khmer woman sex video】Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship,Feature Flash  

Sitemap

Top 主站蜘蛛池模板: 狠狠狠色丁香婷婷综合激情 | 91热久久免费精品 | 国产日韩精品免费一二三区 | 国产亚洲精品第一区香蕉 | 理论片午夜成人影院 | 国产av丝 | 成年h小黄漫画在线观看 | 国产精品亚洲av综合成久久久久久三级 | 日韩亚洲欧洲在线rrrr片 | 亚洲不卡视频 | 成人影院线在线观看免费观看 | 成人精品第一区二区三 | 国产日韩久久久久精品影视 | 公与妇仑乱HD| 少妇精品 | 国产欧美第一精品 | 女人被老外躁得好爽 | 国产69一区二区三区在线观看 | 99无码精品二区在线视频 | 欧美国产激情18 | 永久免费看mv网站入口 | 日韩一区二区三区中文字幕 | 大尺度做爰啪啪高潮床戏小说 | 久久久成人综合亚洲欧洲精品 | 国产69一区二区三区在线观看 | 国产人伦激情久久久久 | 久久激情五月 | 亚洲色欲色欲www在线播放 | 精品久久久久免费极品 | 久久久国产一区二区三区四区小说 | 日韩精品无码去免费专区 | 免费光看午夜请高视频 | 精品精品国产高清a毛片 | 91精品国产乱码在 | 无码人妻aⅴ一区二区三区蜜桃 | 熟女人妻水多爽中文字幕 | 激情欧美一区二区三区中文字幕 | 国产激情视频在线观看 | 激情又色又爽又黄的A片 | 国产人伦人妻精品一区二区 | 黄色动作视频 |