国产精品美女一区二区三区-国产精品美女自在线观看免费-国产精品秘麻豆果-国产精品秘麻豆免费版-国产精品秘麻豆免费版下载-国产精品秘入口

Set as Homepage - Add to Favorites

【rough missionary sex on amateur video】Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship

Source:Global Hot Topic Analysis Editor:relaxation Time:2025-07-03 02:28:15

The rough missionary sex on amateur 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

0.1798s , 14293.765625 kb

Copyright © 2025 Powered by 【rough missionary sex on amateur video】Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship,Global Hot Topic Analysis  

Sitemap

Top 主站蜘蛛池模板: 天美麻花果冻视频大全 | 97色偷偷色噜噜男人 | www.一区二区三 | 91久久精品在这里色伊人6884 | 东京热高清中文字幕 | 丰满多毛少妇做爰视频爽爽和 | 99ri精品| 91香蕉国产线在线观看免费网友评价 | 一区欧美 | 91视频久久精品 | av免费在线观看wwww | 一区二区三区四区在线观看视频 | 午夜成人在线观看完整版 | 99精品视频在线免费观看 | h污小舞白丝玉足榨精小说 h无码动漫 | 99久久国产精品免费热6 | 97午夜国产亚洲精品 | a片专区免费专区 | 囯产精品一区二区免费在线观看 | 国产AV国片偷人妻麻豆 | www.xxxx.日本| 99国产精品欲一区二区三区 | 一区二区三区婷婷 | 一区二区三区国产精品午夜福利 | 91精彩视频惊喜不断 | 乖宝真紧h太好c了h 闺蜜放荡h肉辣文御书屋姜 | 草草在线免费视频 | 韩国三级激情理论电影中文字幕 | 国产av高清和老师偷尝禁果 | 午夜无码大尺度福利视频 | 97在线观看播放 | av天堂高清国产资源网 | 丰满熟妇人妻av无码区 | 丰满的少妇69式视频在线观看 | 国产aⅴ无码专区亚洲av金钱 | 国产va免费精品 | 99久久综合狠狠综合久久男同 | 午夜性色福利在线视频福利 | av无码专区亚洲av麻豆 | 一区二区三区影视 | 91精品国产无码在线观看 |