MOCK TRIAL: Murthy v. Missouri - Free speech, Government and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms

Open to Debate

Education, Society & Culture, News, Government, Politics

4.5 • 2.1K Ratings

🗓️ 14 June 2024

⏱️ 52 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case whether government interference on social media is coercive and suppresses free speech. Those who argue legitimate cooperation say that where misinformation threatens public health or safety, they are justified to protect the public. Those argue coercion believe that increased content moderation could lead to authoritarian control over public discourse online. Now we debate: Mock Trial: Free Speech, Government, and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms. Plaintiff: Charles "Chip" Miller, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech Defendant: Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Founder and Executive Director of Upper Seven Law Cross examiners: Nina Jankowicz, CEO of The American Sunlight Project; Former Executive Director of the Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board Matt Taibbi, Best-selling Author and Journalist; Writer and Publisher of Racket News Eric Schurenberg, Business Journalist and Media Executive; Founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hi all how we doing afternoon afternoon let's get this meeting meeting meeting
0:06.0	started
0:07.0	when everyone's home erepte work mode
0:12.0	when everyone's home ee work mode prioritizes your broadband for working from home, with faster speeds in more places than anyone else.
0:18.0	So, yeah, yeah, I've got you loud and clear, clear is about.
0:21.0	This is broadband made for working from home.
0:24.0	Search EE broadband, powered by BT.
0:26.7	Work mode with EE Smart Hub Plus to verify see EE.
0:28.9	C EE. C EE. K slash claims.
0:30.1	This is open to debate.
0:35.0	Hi everybody, I'm John Don Van.
0:36.5	And in this episode we are going to be examining a major case
0:40.4	that is now before the US Supreme Court. This case has huge implications in its outcome on a lot of different topics that cover public health, election integrity, national security, and at the same time it is a First Amendment case that involves the
0:53.8	federal government and social media platforms and misinformation. So there is a lot
0:58.9	there. The case is called Murphy versus Missouri, and it asks whether the US government violated the First Amendment by asking companies like Twitter and Facebook to take down some user postings during COVID. The court heard arguments in March and is expected to
1:15.2	rule later this year. We're going to employ our mock trial format for this one. That is
1:20.6	where we ask two lawyers to argue in a way that reveals the
1:24.5	constitutional issues involved arguments that the Supreme Court justices
1:28.3	themselves will already have heard. So to begin let's imagine we are all in a
1:32.2	courtroom and let's metaphorically all rise to get started as we meet our two attorneys.
1:38.3	Here to argue on the side of the federal government, Riley Sommer's Flanagan.
1:42.1	Riley is the founder and executive director of
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open to Debate, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Open to Debate and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.