Examining Murthy v. Missouri: Government's Impact on Social Media

DC Debrief host John Stolnis sat down with Lisa Macpherson, Policy Director for Public Knowledge, to discuss the Supreme Court's Oral Arguments for the first amendment social media case, Murthy v. Missouri.
CBN News. Because Truth Matters™
Download the free CBN News App: cbnnews.com/app
SUBSCRIBE to the CBN News Channel for more:
th-cam.com/users/CBNnewsonline?s...
SUBSCRIBE to the QuickStart Newsletter by visiting quickstart.news
SUBSCRIBE to the Quickstart Podcast. New episodes every morning at 7am: cbn.com/cbnnews/quickstart
What's coming up next? Have a look at our program guide: th-cam.com/users/redirect?q=ht...
CBN features 24-hour TV news from a Christian perspective. The CBN News Channel provides independent news programming to an underserved audience to enlighten, entertain and inspire Christians around the world. Comments below do not necessarily reflect the views of CBN.
Share this live feed with your friends and family:
/ cbnnewsonline
Like us on Facebook: / cbnnews
Like us on Twitter: / cbnnews
Follow us on Instagram: / cbnnews
Contact News Editors: th-cam.com/users/redirect?q=ht...
Questions about other CBN programs: Visit WatchCBNNews.com or call [phone].
Questions about supporting CBN News? Visit JoinCBNNews.com or call [phone] for more information.
Questions about Helping the Home Front? Call: 800-700-7000
th-cam.com/users/redirect?q=ht...
#breakingnews #politicalnews #christiannews #christian #christianity #church #breakingnews #cbnnews

[@christophergraves6725]

There seems to be confusion on some of the basic issues in these cases. The issue is not simply whether government can dictate what content appears on Social Media. Rather in all of these cases, the issue is one of free speech. Due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, these Social Media companies traded their editorial control over what appears on their sites for protection from libel laws. In this exchange, these websites became free speech platforms for all points of view whether the companies liked the views of what their subscribers posted or not as long as the posts were not obscene or threatening. In the case of Murthy v. Missouri, the Executive Branch of the Federal government was directly and indirectly pressing Social Media companies to limit free speech in order to suppress dissent on positions that the President and his Cabinet and Staff have taken on certain issues.

[@shirleythomasson5741]

We should have the right to voice opinions and facts weither it be political, medical, and safety..

[@brianblint1556]

I see there are people who are seriously trying to find out an awful lot of information on her social media issue
I see the same profile on various other videos....
Some people need to be aware.

[@stevejohnson1262]

“Sons of Aḏam are but a breath, Sons of men are a lie; If weighed in the scales, They are altogether lighter than breath.” (Psalms 62:9)

[@KathrynHL]

I and my sister Research and fact check our posts, we both have had posts shut out because they did not like the facts we presented.

[@sylviadiaz8247]

Lord Jesus fix your CBN!!!

[@toddjay5635]

New world power the higher power the dream team working growing and building together people power and the power of the people worthless to priceless unbelievable unstoppable and unbreakable together PEOPLE POWER 💪

[@leslovesliberty1776]

This woman appears completely naive & ignorant to free speech issues & the Constitution in general...

[@martinpalm5]

these reporters sound like leftists.