Hi, this is Alyssa and Ephraim from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I've been wanting to record a timestamp forever, but it finally took the birth of my baby boy on New Year's Day to get me around to it.

This podcast was recorded at...

It is 12-15 Eastern and congratulations on the multitasking of doing anything else when caring for a newborn.

Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but we'll still be at home cuddling and enjoying this newborn phase.

Okay, here's the show.

All that sweet newborn phase.

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Scott Deatro, I cover the White House.

I'm Susan Davis, I cover politics.

I'm Nina Tottenberg, I cover the Supreme Court.

Nina, glad to have you on the podcast.

Thank you, I love being here.

We love having you and I think most listeners can guess the topic when you're here.

We're going to be talking about the Supreme Court today because a really interesting case, just heard arguments, on a ruling that could completely change the internet as we know it,

though Nina, as you reported it from how the judges behaved, that might not be the case.

We will get into all of the details.

Let's start with what is being argued here and how broad the stakes could be.

Well, the issue basically is does the internet have immunity from most civil lawsuits?

Congress basically granted that immunity to the industry in 1996 when the internet was in its infancy because Congress wanted this new animal to prosper and grow.

But these days, a lot of folks hate the internet on the right, on the left and in between.

And the question in this case involves one of the few exceptions to the immunity that Congress wrote into the law.

And the new one is 2016, the exception.

...