#BESTOF2022: FOR THOSE DECRYING MUSK: #SCOTUS: 9-0 against cancelling social media platforms. Richard Epstein, Hoover.
The John Batchelor Show
John Batchelor
4.5 • 2.8K Ratings
🗓️ 12 October 2023
⏱️ 5 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rule+230+supreme+court&t=osx&ia=web
1930 FDR
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | This is CBS I and the World. I'm John Matz with Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover |
| 0:08.9 | Institution, the headline, Scotus, Supreme Court of the United States, spares Section 230, |
| 0:14.7 | rules Google, Twitter, not liable for aiding ISIS. What? Google, Google and Twitter were |
| 0:20.8 | suspect. Professor, Section 230, as I understand it, is something that has now been returned |
| 0:27.5 | remanded to a lower court by a decision of the Supreme Court. What is it? What does it mean |
| 0:32.6 | immunity shield? Okay, well, there are two things involved in this case. One is the common |
| 0:38.6 | more court action and the other is an effort to break through the shield that fires it |
| 0:43.8 | provides for individuals by saying that if you're a century of running an internet operation, |
| 0:49.4 | you're not responsible for the content that's posted on that system by a whole variety |
| 0:53.9 | of individuals. And it turns out that you can remove this stuff without exposing yourself |
| 0:58.8 | the various forms of liability. And so essentially what the section was designed to do to promote |
| 1:04.4 | a vibrant political economy and all the rest of that was to give them a shield against |
| 1:10.8 | liability on the one hand and to give them proactive means to make sure that the system |
| 1:16.0 | runs pretty well. Section 30 is very controversial now because it turns out when you look at Twitter |
| 1:22.8 | and the other device, there's a clear sense that the people running them are running a |
| 1:27.3 | selector political vendetta and that they're acting in bad faith in ways which might displace |
| 1:32.7 | you from the spies are running. So if this were a case by some famous physician who says, |
| 1:38.0 | or my commentary about the COVID vaccine has been removed by people who have had a miscarriage, |
| 1:43.3 | that would be a serious case. This isn't that case. This is the case in which they're trying |
| 1:47.7 | to hold somebody liable for the terrorist activity by people who may or may not have read their |
| 1:53.3 | tweets. And so the way in which the case actually came down was that the Supreme Court ignored the |
| 2:00.0 | Pfizer claim and the Pfizer defense, but they didn't have to raise them because they decided |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from John Batchelor, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of John Batchelor and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

