18 Burst results for "Eric Goldman"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"The Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI likely violated free speech rights by coercing social media platforms to take down posts on their sites at times with intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences. White House Press Secretary Corrine Jean -Pierre has said that communications by Biden officials with the social media companies was not coercive. We have promoted responsible actions to protect public health safety and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, and we have consistently made clear that we believe social media companies have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects of their platforms that they have on the American people while making independent decisions about the content of their platforms. Joining me is Professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law. He's also a co -director of the High Tech Law Institute. Eric, what was main the issue in the Fifth Circuit case? The basic question is when were conversations that were taking place between the government and social media services becoming so coercive or so that directed the social media services were doing the government's bidding and removing content of their direction? Did the Fifth Circuit find that there were actual threats made to social social media companies? It did, but the threats are always a little bit vague. It's not always as easy as, you must do X or we will throw you in jail. The threats are often more indirect and that's one of the many challenges from this opinion. It wasn't entirely clear to me exactly which threats mattered or when they even became threats. And what did the injunction specifically prohibit Biden administration officials from doing? The actual implementation of the injunction is no more clear than before the opinion. What the court said is that certain branches of the government, specifically they called out the White House and the FBI must comply with the rules articulated in the court, but the court didn't provide concrete boundaries around those rules. simply It said, you must comply with the Constitution. So in a sense, I don't know how the executive branches are going to implement what the court's ordering them to do, because it's insane comply with the Constitution, but obviously the people who made those decisions in the first place weren't clear what was constitutional, what the Constitution, and they're going to learn clearer now. It also says they can't significantly encourage platforms to move lawful content. So what does significantly encourage mean? Exactly. That's the point. The encouragement significant is the boundary around the constitutional protections. In other words, if they're significantly encouraging the removal of constitutional content, that's not constitutional. That's violation a of the First Amendment. However, what constitutes a significant encouragement is not made clear by the opinion. They do point to a few examples, but I don't think I would know how to actually interpret that language. What's likely to happen is that if this opinion stands, the regulated entities are going to become far less conversational with the social media services. They're not going to take a chance about violating the rule. So the court standard actually clears out a lot of permissive behavior today because the boundary is so unclear, people are going to on err the side of being cautious. Well, that's what the Republicans who brought this case want, isn't it? The Missouri AG Andrew Bailey said that the ruling was another brick in the wall separation between tech and state. No doubt many people wish that the government would not be in conversations with social media services. And yet, the court's opinion really casts a shadow over dialogues that take place every day, all the time, throughout our entire country, between governments and private entities, not just social media services. This concern about significant encouragement or coercion comes up across the board in lots of spaces. And the Christian standard puts potentially many or all of those in play, opens up the door for lots of people to challenge government conversations that are just in public health and safety interests. Government's just trying to do its job to protect its citizens. And now, this court casts a doubt on the legitimacy of those efforts. The Biden administration had said that it was pushing social media companies to just adhere to their own rules about content. Did you see a First Amendment violation here? There's no doubt that some individual employees of the government pushed the frontiers perhaps to or over the limit. That's just the nature of individual government employees so zealously trying to do their job, they might get a little bit excited. Having said that, I think that, overall, none of the social media services appreciate the feedback from the government. They want to hear from the government because the government sees things that they don't or is a good neutral source of assessing risks in the community that need to be addressed. It's helpful for the social media services to hear from the government the risk that the government is assessing, what might be done to address those risks. That's actually helpful and that forms the social media services' own independent editorial discretion. The line between that kind of activity and the overzealous pushing by some government employees is really thin and we want fewer of the overzealous stuff but we definitely want the other stuff to and continue that's the part that I don't think the government employees are going to know where they are on that spectrum. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Anthony Fauci who came under such criticism from conservatives COVID, during you know, the Fifth Circuit said no, he did okay, he was fine. Yeah, I think the Fifth Circuit was trying not to engage in partisan Fauci was the target of conservative ire and so they weren't pandering to that ire and and yet the entire structure of the opinion really does validate a lot of the conservative objectives in a way that I think fundamentally undermines public health and safety. So it's kind of like what do we really want from the government and I don't know that I share the Fifth Circuit's
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"With the social media companies was not coercive. We have promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections and we have consistently made clear that we believe social media companies have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects of their platforms that they have American on the people while making independent decisions about the content of their of their platforms. Joining me is Professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law. He's also a co -director of the High Tech Law Institute. Eric, what was the main issue in the Fifth Circuit case? The basic question is, when were conversations that were taking place between the government and social media services becoming so coercive so or directed that the social media services were doing the bidding and removing content of their direction? Did the Fifth Circuit find that there were actual threats made to social media companies? It did, but the threats are always a little bit vague. It's not always as easy as, you must do X or we will throw you in jail. The threats are often more indirect and that's one of the many challenges from this opinion. It wasn't entirely clear to me exactly which threats mattered or when they even became threats. And what did the injunction specifically prohibit Biden administration officials from doing? The actual implementation of the injunction is no more clear than before the opinion. What the court said is that certain branches to the government, specifically, they called out the White House and the FBI must comply with the rules articulated in the court. But the court didn't provide concrete boundaries around those rules and simply said, you must comply with the Constitution. So, in a sense, I don't know how the executive branches are going to implement what the court's ordering them to do because it's saying comply with the Constitution. But obviously, the people who made those decisions in the first place weren't clear what was constitutional and what wasn't and they don't know they're any clearer now. It also says they can't significantly encourage platforms to remove lawful content. So what does significantly encourage mean? Exactly. That's the point. The significant encouragement is the boundary around the constitutional protections. In other words, if they're significantly encouraging the removal of constitutional content, that's not constitutional. That's a violation of the First Amendment. However, what constitutes a significant encouragement is not made clear by the opinion. They do point to a few examples, but I don't think I would know how to actually interpret that language. And so what's likely to happen is if that this opinion stands, the regulated entities are going to become far less conversational with the social media services. They're not going to take a chance about violating the rule. So the court standard actually clears out a lot of permissive behavior today because the boundary is so clear, people are going to err on the side of being cautious. Well, that's what the Republicans who brought this case want, isn't it? The Missouri AG Andrew Bailey said that the ruling was another brick in the wall of separation between tech and state. No doubt many people wish that the government would not be in conversations with social media services. And yet, the court's opinion really casts a shadow over dialogues that take place every day, all the throughout our entire country, between governments and private entities, social not just media services. This concern about significant encouragement or coercion comes up across the board in lots of spaces. And the court standard puts potentially many or all of those those in play, opens up the door for lots of people to challenge government conversations that are just in the public health and safety interest. Government's just trying to do its job to protect its citizens. And now this court casts a doubt on the legitimacy of those efforts. The Biden administration had said that it pushing was social media companies to just adhere to their own rules about content. Did you see a First Amendment violation here? There's no doubt that some Individual employees of the government pushed the frontiers perhaps to or over the limit. That's just the nature of individual government employees so zealously trying to do their job. They might get a little bit excited. Having said that, I think that overall, of none the social media services appreciate the feedback from the government. They want to hear from the government because the government sees things that they don't or is a good neutral source of assessing risks in the community that need to be addressed. It's helpful for the social media services to hear from the government the risk that the government is assessing, what might be done to address those risks. That's actually helpful and that informs the social media services own independent editorial discretion. So, the line between that kind of activity and the overzealous pushing by some government employees is really thin and we want fewer of the overzealous stuff, but we definitely want the other stuff to continue and that's the part that I don't think the government employees are going to know they are on that spectrum. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who came such criticism from conservatives during COVID, you know, the Fifth Circuit said no, he did okay, he was fine. Yeah, I think the Fifth Circuit was trying not to engage in partisan politics. Fauci was the target of conservative ire and so they weren't pandering that to ire and yet the entire structure of the opinion really does validate a lot of the conservative objectives in a way that I think fundamentally undermines public health and safety. So it's kind of like what do we really want from the government? And I don't know that I share the Fifth Circuit's vision of what it wants from the government. I always point out that the Fifth Circuit is considered the most conservative appellate court in the country and we've seen these judges make rulings that were outliers before and it's getting reversed by the Supreme Court more than it used to. Well the good news is that this critical opinion fixed an even worse district court opinion that was a true outlier and even that opinion was too much for the Fifth Circuit. They could not stand behind this opinion that had just gone rogue on the of rule law. So in that sense the Fifth Circuit opinion is definitely better than the district court opinion that preceded it yet and I don't know what would happen if the Fifth Circuit opinion is appealed to the Supreme Court. The Biden Administration told the Supreme Court it's going to ask the court to take the case on appeal. And in the meantime Justice Samuel Alito granted the government's request for a temporary stay. Does the Justice Department have a good argument for the court to take this case? The opinion, although it narrowed the injunction quite a bit, it still leaves a core injunction against key executive branch agencies restricting their ability to do their job and leaving such ambiguity about how they can do their job that it seems like they need the Supreme Court of the government more guidance. It wouldn't surprise me if the states, or the plaintiffs in this case, also appeal the ruling because they want to pick up the stuff they had gotten in the district court that the Fifth Circuit took away. it's So entirely possible both sides will be encouraging the Supreme Court to take this case. And we'll know more by next Friday when those stay ends. Thanks, Eric. That's Professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law. Coming up next, Justice Alito refuses to recuse. I'm June listening to Bloomberg. Missed your favorite Bloomberg Radio show? Bloomberg Businessweek, Masters in Business, Bloomberg Intelligence, and more are also available as podcasts. Listen today on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. I'm Emily Chang, and on my new show, The Circuit. I speak with the big names in tech, culture, and innovation and ask, what's next? You'll hear from leading tech CEOs and investors alongside influencers and celebrity entrepreneurs. This is a chance to go deeper, to meet people in their world and find out what drives them. Watch The Circuit Thursday nights from Bloomberg Originals. You can catch 10 it at p .m. Eastern on Bloomberg TV and on the Bloomberg app and Bloomberg .com. And download The Circuit companion podcast wherever you get your podcasts. The Bloomberg Talks podcast. Today's top interviews from around Bloomberg News. An exclusive interview with the chair of the SEC, Gary Gensler. Kathy Wood, the founder of ARK Invest. Thanks for joining us. Wide ranging conversations with Fortune 500 Egan, CEO, big name investors and business leaders around the world. Back with us is Enon Krize, chairman and CEO of
Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood
"eric goldman" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood
"And now for some related links, of course we've got Matt peral's full essay for lawfare, where he goes much deeper into the legal arguments and innovation implications, it's linked at our site, marketplace tech dot org. And you don't have to take his word for whether section two 30 will apply to generative AI. The Washington Post reports that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has already waded into the issue during oral arguments last week, justice Gorsuch mused. I mean, artificial intelligence generates poetry, it generates polemics today that that would be content that goes beyond picking choosing analyzing or digesting content. And that is not protected. Let's assume that's right, okay? In that case at hand last week was Gonzalez V Google, a concerns weather recommendation algorithms like the ones that populate your next video on YouTube are protected by section two 30. Last October on the show, we spoke to Santa Clara university law professor Eric Goldman about the implications of that case when the Supreme Court announced it would take it up, which feels so long ago now back when chatbots were just those annoying pop ups that hounded you on retail websites. Jesus alvarado produced this episode, I'm Megan mccarty carino, and that's marketplace tech. This is APM. We know kids have lots of questions, and the ones about money can be the most difficult to answer. That's why you need our podcast million bazillion. In every episode, we find answers to the tough, surprising, and sometimes awkward questions kids have about money. Yep, from what is a black market to why do we get paid different amounts and what do grown-ups do with all their money? Million bazillion from marketplace, helping dollars make more sense. Listen to season four, wherever you get your podcasts.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Or caveat in their statements. So it would be easy for them to say something like Google wins because of section two 30 and as they stop right there, that could actually be an okay opinion. But what they're likely to do is then say, because of the following facts. And if those facts were different, we might reach a different outcome. Well, as you can imagine, every single plaintiff is going to pick up on the caveat and say, well, I think I can make a claim where I can allege the facts that I said might make a difference. And so we're going to just initiate this huge groundswell of new litigation to explore any caveat or qualification of the Supreme Court puts in. And I don't think they can help themselves to do that. Let's turn to the Twitter case for a moment, which is not about section two 30. The case stems from a 2017 terrorist shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, and a concerns the boundaries of the federal anti terrorism law. Just to be clear, so the Gonzales case involves section two 30, which is a defense immunity from liability that covers a wide range of potential claims. The Twitter case only evolved the anti terrorism act. One of the many possible claims that might be covered by section two 30. Now in the anti terrorism act, the question is, what constitutes aiding and abetting a terrorist organization? And the aid in abetting question is just a morass of confusion and ambiguity. Every plaintiff can allege that social media or other websites help some bad actors. That's the whole nature of talking to each other online. And section two there is taken that way when we open up that door and look at it like we did with the Twitter case to justices don't know what to do. That's just judicial anarchy. Could the justices use the Twitter case as a potential off ramp to sidestep any questions about the fate of section two 30? Justice Amy Coney Barrett's suggested that in the Google arguments on Tuesday. So they're both relying on the same aiding and abetting theory. So if you lose tomorrow, do we even have to reach the section two 30 question here, would you concede that you would lose on that ground here? Yeah, that is a possibility for the court to decide the decision and Twitter could affect the decision in the Gaza case. I don't know if they want to do that. They've already geared up to hear the cases and do all the analysis. And then they would be basically putting all that work into the garbage. So I would be surprised if they want to go that route, but on the other hand, I could see why they would choose to do that because in the end, they know that whatever they say about sexuality there is going to have huge consequences and if they feel like they're not ready to apply upon it, they do have that potential exit around. Well, we'll find out by June, thanks so much, Eric. That's professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara university school of law. Coming up next, why the prosecution lowered the charges against Alec Baldwin. I'm June gros and you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast D on the latest sound on podcasts a year of war in Ukraine with California congressman John garamendi just back from a visit to the Polish Ukrainian border. We have to continue to provide Ukraine all that the useful military equipment that it needs to prosecute this war. And also we need to continue to support Ukraine. Keeping in mind that we're not alone in this. NATO countries are in for as much as we've been. We put in whatever amount of money it is and whatever armament. Fatal countries have done a similar amount and European Union also. So this coalition remains strong if we remain strong. We've got a chance of winning this thing. Either all out or at a very advantageous negotiating situation. Your use of the term useful is important here. Weapons that are useful to the effort because Ukraine is asking for everything congressman you know that. What's the most useful thing we can give now? Well, we must continue to provide the hefty artillery and long-range rockets that we presently have used have given to them and continue to support the eastern naval countries that have Soviet era Lake jet fighters, which are quite good. And are useful to the Ukrainians. They know how to maintain they know how to fly, but the countries are frankly trying to give those two Ukraine unless they can backfill with more modern jets from the west. So it's kind of like the issue with the tanks then. We send some F-16s over that unlocks the MiGs that they can start flying tomorrow. Is that right? Come those NATO countries. That
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Or caveat in their statements. So it would be easy for them to say something like Google wins because of section two 30 and if they stop right there, that could actually be an okay opinion. But what they're likely to do is then say, because of the following facts. And if those facts were different, we might reach a different outcome. Well, as you can imagine, every single plaintiff is going to pick up on the caveat and say, well, I think I can make a claim where I can allege the facts that I said might make a difference. And so we're going to just initiate this huge groundswell of new litigation to explore any caveat or qualification of Supreme Court puts in. And I don't think they can help themselves to do that. Let's turn to the Twitter case for a moment, which is not about section two 30. The case stems from a 2017 terrorist shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, and a concerns the boundaries of the federal anti terrorism law. Just to be clear, so the case involves section two 30, which is a defense immunity from liability that covers a wide range of potential claims. The Twitter case only evolved the anti terrorism act. One of the many possible claims I might be covered by section two 30. Now in the anti terrorism act, the question is what constitutes aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. And the aid in abetting question is just a morass of confusion and ambiguity. Every plaintiff can allege that social media or other websites help some bad actor. That's the whole nature of talking to each other online. And section two there is taking that away when we open up that door and look at it like we did with the Twitter case to justices don't know what to do. That's just judicial anarchy. Could the justices use the Twitter case as a potential off ramp to sidestep any questions about the fate of section two 30? Justice Amy Coney Barrett's suggested that in the Google arguments on Tuesday. So they're both relying on the same aiding and abetting theory. So if you lose tomorrow, do we even have to reach the section two 30 question here? Would you concede that you would lose on that ground here? Yes, that is a possibility for the court to decide that the decision and Twitter could affect the decision in the case. I don't know if they want to do that. They've already geared up to hear the cases and do all the analysis. And then they would be basically putting all that work into the garbage. So I would be surprised if they want to go that route, but on the other hand, I could see why they would choose to do that because in the end, they know that whatever they say about sex or two there is going to have huge consequences and if they feel like they're not ready to apply upon it, they do have that potential exit around. Well, we'll find out by June, thanks so much, Eric. That's professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara university school of law. Coming up next, why the prosecution lowered the charges against Alec Baldwin. I'm June grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. On the latest edition of the Bloomberg business week podcast, a conversation with David Musto, CEO of a census on retirement planning. You know, you talked about people's accounts being down and that's true, but really the important takeaway is we need to be consistently saving over time and increasing our saving over time to really set ourselves up for a successful retirement. One of the things that's been great to see is that there's been a lot of consistency and resiliency in the American saver. So despite all of the headwinds, despite everything that's going on in the environment. So even through the pandemic, as well. Even through the pandemic, the average contribution to 401k plans has remained stable. We haven't seen very high numbers of people taking loans. We haven't seen significant increases in the people taking hardship withdrawals. There have been some slight increases, but on the margin, you're talking about one to 2% of participants and plans. Is it because a lot of people who have 401k plans through their work, a lot of those people stayed employed. A lot of those people stayed employed and we've been well trained to think about the last couple of decades, right? Dot com bubble bursts, 2008, 2009 financial crisis. People have been learning that staying put being consistent continuing to save over time is the best way to see through those difficult periods. So it's really good news. Now, the bad news is we have 25% of Americans that don't have any retirement savings. Right. About 40% that would say they're not on track to a successful retirement. And guess what? That number is probably low. There's probably more people that truly are on track. It's 55 million Americans that don't have access to a workplace retirement program. Here the food conversation on the latest edition of a Bloomberg businessweek podcast. Subscribe on Apple Spotify and anywhere else you get your
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Following facts. And if those facts were different, we might reach a different outcome. Well, as you can imagine, every single plaintiff is going to pick up on the caveat and say, well, I think I can make a claim where I can allege the facts that I said might make a difference. And so we're going to just initiate this huge groundswell of new litigation to explore any caveat or qualification of Supreme Court puts in. And I don't think they can help themselves to do that. Let's turn to the Twitter case for a moment, which is not about section two 30. The case stems from a 2017 terrorist shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, and a concerns the boundaries of the federal anti terrorism law. Just to be clear, so the Gonzales case involves section two 30, which is a defense immunity from liability that covers a wide range of potential claims. The Twitter case only evolved the anti terrorism act. One of the many possible claims that might be covered by section two 30. Now in the anti terrorism act, the question is, what constitutes aiding and abetting a terrorist organization? And the aid in the betting question is just a morass of confusion and ambiguity. Every plaintiff can allege that social media or other websites help some bad actors. That's the whole nature of talking to each other online. And section two there is taken that way when we open up that door and look at it like we did with the Twitter case to justices don't know what to do. That's just judicial anarchy. Could the justices use the Twitter case as a potential off ramp to sidestep any questions about the fate of section two 30? Justice Amy Coney Barrett's suggested that in the Google arguments on Tuesday. So they're both relying on the same aiding and abetting theory. So if you lose tomorrow, do we even have to reach the section two 30 question here? Would you concede that you would lose on that ground here? Yes, that is a possibility for the court to decide the decision and Twitter could affect the decision in the Gonzales case. I don't know if they want to do that. They've already geared up to hear the cases and do all the analysis. And then they would be basically putting all that work into the garbage. So I would be surprised if they want to go that route, but on the other hand, I could see why they would choose to do that because in the end, they know that whatever they say about sex or two there is going to have huge consequences and that they feel like they're not ready to apply upon that. They do have that potential exit around. Well, we'll find out by June, thanks so much, Eric. That's professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara university school of law. Coming up next, why the prosecution lowered the charges against Alec Baldwin. I'm June grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. On the latest edition of the Bloomberg business week podcast, a conversation with David Musto, CEO of a census on retirement planning. You know, you talked about people's accounts being down and that's true, but really the important takeaway is we need to be consistently saving over time and increasing our saving over time to really set ourselves up for a successful retirement. One of the things that's been great to see is that there's been a lot of consistency and resiliency in the American saver. So despite all of the headwinds, despite everything that's going on in the environment. So even through the pandemic, as well. Even through the pandemic, the average contribution to 401k plans has remained stable. We haven't seen very high numbers of people taking loans. We haven't seen significant increases in the people taking hardship with Charles. There have been some slight increases, but on the margin, you're talking about one to 2% of participants and plans. Is it because a lot of people who have 401k plans through their work, a lot of those people stayed employed. A lot of those people stayed employed and we've been well trained to think about the last couple of decades, right? Dot com bubble bursts, 2008, 2009 financial crisis. People have been learning that staying put being consistent continuing to save over time is the best way to see through those difficult periods. So it's really good news. Now, the bad news is we have 25% of Americans that don't have any retirement savings. Right. About 40% that would say they're not on track to a successful retirement. And guess what? That number is probably low. There's probably more people that truly are an on track. It's 55 million Americans that don't have access to a workplace retirement program. Here the food conversation on the latest edition of the Bloomberg businessweek podcast. Subscribe on Apple Spotify and anywhere
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. It's been the subject of controversy for years. Section two 30 of the communications decency act, a legal shield for social media platforms, and Congress has been debating whether it should be reformed or revoked. Repealing the law may be the one thing that president Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump agree on. Of course, not for the same reasons. We must hold social media platforms accountable for the national experiment they're conducting on our children for profit. The big tech persists in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their section two 30 protection. There's been no action in Congress in the face of partisan differences, and now the Supreme Court has decided to step into the middle of this politically fraught debate over whether some of the world's most powerful tech companies should continue to be protected or should be held accountable for third party content. My guest is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara university school of law, and co director of the school's high-tech law institute. So Eric tell us about section two 30. Section two 30 says that websites aren't liable for third party content. It's a really simple premise. The idea is that people who post content take responsibility for it, but the services that they use to post that content don't. Both cases, the court is going to consider involve terrorist attacks abroad, one in Paris in 2015 and another in Istanbul in 2017. Tell us about the plaintiff's arguments against Google and Twitter. Well, I really both of them involve pretty much the same set of facts. They involve terrorist attacks abroad that were allegedly related to social media. And the relationship can vary based on the facts, but the general gist is that the terrorist organizations recruited and radicalized readers online and because of that the services now take responsibility for the actions that are done by these terrorist organizations or the people that they radicalized. So are the plaintiffs in these cases complaining about the algorithm generated recommendations? Well, what are those part of it? You could look at it a little bit more broadly. I think the starting premise
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"To face a reckoning before the Supreme Court this term? The court has decided to put itself in the middle of the debate over whether some of the world's most powerful tech companies should be protected as neutral forums for speech or held accountable for the content. The cases are the first test before the court of the broad immunity social media companies have under section two 30 part of the 1996 communications decency act. It's become a target of conservatives, including former president Trump, who say it lets left leaning tech companies censor right wing voices. I've been talking to professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara university law school and co director of the high-tech law institute. Is it happenstance that both these involve terrorist attacks on foreign soil? No, I don't think it's happenstance because many of the cases that have been brought in this genre. There are about 20 of them that have been filed across the country have involved foreign terrorist activity. Some of them have involved domestic activity, ultimately I don't think that it really matters from a legal standpoint. There's so many legal reasons why the services should be liable regardless of where the terrorist activity took place. So these cases are the first chest of section two 30 at the Supreme Court. What does it tell you that the Supreme Court agreed to hear them when and like so many other cases, this term, it didn't have to, meaning there was no circuit split that it had to resolve. Yeah. So one of the most common ways that Supreme
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Facebook and Twitter were grilled at a House committee hearing in March of last year about how they moderate or fail to moderate content posted by users. There was a lot of discussion of section two 30 of the communications decency act, Google's chief executive officer Sundar Pichai, told lawmakers that revoking section two 30 would revert content moderation to the early 1990s before that protection from lawsuits existed. We strive to have transparent policies and enforce them without regard to politics or point of view. Our ability to provide a range of information and viewpoints while also being able to remove misinformation is possible only because of legal frameworks, like section two 30. Congress has taken no action, and so now the Supreme Court has decided to step into the middle of the politically fraught debate over section two 30. Joining me is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara university school of law, and the co director of the school's high-tech law institute. Explain section two 30 for us. Section two 30 says that websites aren't liable for third party content. It's a really simple premise. The idea is that people who post content take responsibility for it, but the services that they use to post that content don't. So now, both cases here involve terrorist attacks abroad. Tell us about the case against Google first. Well, I really both of them involve pretty much the same set of facts. They involve terrorist attacks abroad that were allegedly related to social media. And the relationship can vary based on the facts, but the general gist is that the terrorist organizations recruited and radicalized readers online and because of that the services now take responsibility for the actions that are done by these terrorist organizations or the people that they radicalized. So is this about the algorithm generated recommendations? What are those part of it? But you can look at it a little bit more broadly. I think the starting premise is that the terrorist organization should never be online in the first instance. And if they are online, then the social media services giving them that support now take responsibility for any of the consequences that flow from the visibility that they gain online. So it's really one of these situations where social media services are just one of many possible contributors to the outcome. And we don't hold everyone who has that kind of tenuous connection to a terrorist attack responsible for the attack in the first instance. Isn't it a leap for the plaintiffs to go from showing social media postings to proving that the platforms were responsible for international terrorism? It is a leap and that really gets to the core of the underlying social question. Here, assuming that a terrorist attack is done by an individual who's had many relationships in life, they have a landlord, or they have a Homer's association. They have a job. They took the bus to work or they have an Internet access provider who allowed them to connect to the Internet. All of those people in theory are all some very indirect contributor to the activities of this individual, but we don't hold them responsible. So we make a distinction in the law between what we call bus four causation, could never have happened without this person doing what they did. And what we call proximate causation, the people who actually are close enough to the outcome that they could have changed the outcome. And it's that last piece, the idea that social media services are the proximate cause of a distant terrorist attack just doesn't really pass the sanity check. We look at them and say, that's too far, that doesn't make sense. And a number of the related cases to the ones that are going to Supreme Court have failed for that very reason. Of course, then
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Sticking to its precedent Thanks Eric That's professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara university law school coming up a major setback for the special counsel's investigation This is Bloomberg Burden LLP Make your kitchen ready for every summer gathering this Memorial Day with LG and lovers are exclusive appliance suite includes ranges with air fry refrigerators with slow melts and cracked ice and an exclusive dishwasher you can only find it lows Plus you'll get up to 10% back via a Mastercard prepaid card when you run to eligible LG products via rebate Shop Memorial Day savings hit lows After about 5 19 through 6 21 I select LG items only See lows dot com slash rebates for details and timing He accountants and advisers presents tax chat with Lisa Goldman partner and leader of burdens international tax and advisory practice An NFT or non fungible token is a certificate then entitles the holder to certain rights associated with a digital asset These assets come attack implications that will likely be governed by general tax principles The impact will depend on whether you sell trade create or invest in the asset making it essential to document on NFT transactions for tax purposes Helping clients plan for the unexpected is what we do at burden We develop customized strategies that help preserve our client's wealth and reduce their overall tax liability If you're a high net worth individual invest in in digital assets the burden help protect you your family and your business For more tax chat from burden accountants and advisers visit burden LLP dot com That's BER DON LLP dot com Burden accountants and advisers we listen we solve we do This is a.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Analysts in over a 120 countries This is Bloomberg radio Now a global news update President Biden and South Korean president yoon say they're working together to secure energy supply chains to deter future aggression from Russia the two leaders held a press conference after their meeting in Seoul Biden said the two countries were united against the war in Ukraine Monkeypox is spreading Brian shook has more The World Health Organization confirms 80 cases of monkeypox with recent outbreaks reported in 11 countries in the U.S. one possible case in New York and one possible case in Massachusetts are being investigated The CDC says monkeypox which is a cousin of smallpox can spread through airborne droplets and bodily fluids Symptoms include fever body aches and rash I'm Brian shook At least one person is dead dozens others injured after a tornado rips through northern Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has declared a state of emergency for on Siegel county one top official tells CNN the damage in the town of Gaylord is catastrophic I'm Brad's feet This is Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio I want to hold this company accountable It's time that these dangers show this come to an end that other families don't experience the heartbreak We live every day To want to Anderson says her ten year old daughter nyla died after participating in the online blackout challenge in which people choke themselves until they pass out Anderson blames TikTok and her family is suing the social media platform Her attorney Jeffrey Goodman says TikTok's algorithm targeted nyla Our lawsuit is not about simply somebody posting the video It's about the actions that TikTok took to send the video to nyla My guest is Eric Goldman a professor at Santa Clara university law school and co director of the high-tech law institute Eric tell us a little about the lawsuit So the lawsuit involves really tragic situation One that's been replicated over and over again where minor sees something on online video site and then tries to replicate it and suffers some kind of serious harm In this case the death of the child The mom is not suing the people who posted the challenge but she's suing the social media platform the challenge was on Is that unusual Right So the lawsuit then seats to treat the video services as if they're providing dangerous content or harmful content in a way that can be legally restricted And this has become pretty common in Internet law today to try to treat Internet services as if there are dangerous products that they murder people like smoking kills smokers And those legal theories are being tested in the court rate now but we're seeing them quite frequently nowadays The suit alleges that TikTok's algorithm determined that this deadly blackout challenge was likely to be of interest to the ten year old girl and that it showed up on her for you page So does the suit depend on proving this algorithm did that Well to be clear TikTok didn't have some kind of magician at the back end saying I think that this is the kind of content that this particular viewer is most likely to respond to It's all done by algorithm So there's a bunch of formulas that set up what content might be appropriate or not for the audience but they're never going to be perfect And they're always going to make assumptions about the people that they're exposing to Now one of the questions underlying this lawsuit is whether or not the video actually caused the death And this is a complicated question in legal circles because there's a lot of things that contributed to the ultimate death And we have to then establish the video is the basis of the death And that TikTok then could have done something to prevent that from occurring And so there's a bunch of legal questions embedded in this assertion that the algorithms cause the death We have to really take a look at that from a legal standpoint And it's not clear what the answers will be TikTok says that this challenge has been around before the app was started has not been a TikTok trend and people seem to learn it from sources other than TikTok Are those good arguments They get to the causation topic that we were discussing earlier There's a lot of ways in which kids encourage each other to do really dangerous things And kids emulate wide range of media depictions that they see and we can't hold all of those legally responsible So the fact that there might be other channels for the information to reach the child is actually a potential defense if it undermines the causation question that parents will have to show But otherwise the fact that the child could have gone the information from somewhere else doesn't really act as a defense if in fact the child got the information from TikTok And could TikTok say as a defense that it's up to parents to decide what their children view on social media And to keep them away from sites that might endanger them There's no doubt that parents have a role in supervising their children's Internet usage And as a parent I had the dilemmas when my kids came to me and said could I install this social media app There are times I said no because I didn't think there was appropriate for children But there's a lot of things that parents can't do and ideally parents can trust that the environments that their kids are growing up in are free from unreasonably hazardous dangers And so the argument here is that TikTok is one of those unreasonably hazardous dangers that's shouldn't be available to children even if the parents are doing everything they can The family is also alleging strict product liability which is usually used when a product has a design defect It means they wouldn't have to show negligence but can you use strict product liability against a social media platform It's unclear Maybe not we don't know.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"eric goldman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"To hold this company accountable It's time that these dangers challenges come to an end that other families don't experience the heartbreak We live every day To want to Anderson says her ten year old daughter nyla died after participating in the online blackout challenge in which people choke themselves until they pass out Anderson blames TikTok and her family is suing the social media platform Her attorney Jeffrey Goodman says TikTok's algorithm targeted nyla Our lawsuit is not about simply somebody posting the video It's about the actions that TikTok took to send the video to nyla My guest is Eric Goldman a professor at Santa Clara university law school and co director of the high-tech law institute Start by telling us a little about this lawsuit So the lawsuit involves really tragic situation One that's been replicated over and over again where minor sees something on online video site and then tries to replicate it and suffers some kind of serious harm In this case the death of the child The mom is not suing the people who posted the challenge but she's suing the social media platform the challenge was on Is that unusual Right so the lawsuit then seats to treat the video services as if they're providing dangerous content or harmful content in a way that can be legally restricted And this has become pretty common in Internet law today to try to treat Internet services as if there are dangerous products that they murder people like smoking kills smokers And those legal theories are being tested in the court rate now but we're seeing them quite frequently nowadays The suit alleges that TikTok's algorithm determined that this deadly blackout challenge was likely to be of interest to the ten year old girl So does the suit depend on proving this algorithm did that Well to be clear TikTok didn't have some kind of magician at the back end saying I think that this is the kind of content that this particular viewer is most likely to respond to It's all done by algorithm So there's a bunch of formulas that set up what content might be appropriate or not for the audience but they're never going to be perfect And they're always going to make assumptions about the people that they're exposing to Now one of the questions underlying this lawsuit is whether or not the video actually caused the death And this is a complicated question in legal circles because there's a lot of things that contributed to the ultimate death And we have to then establish that the video is the basis of the death And that TikTok then could have done something to prevent that from occurring And so there's a bunch of legal questions embedded in this assertion that the algorithms cause the death We have to really take a look at that from a legal standpoint And it's not clear what the answers will be Not to be callous about this and the death is so tragic but isn't the role of the parents to moderate how their children use social media and to keep kids off TikTok if it's dangerous There's no doubt that parents have a role in supervising their children's Internet usage And as a parent I had the dilemmas when my kids came to me and said could I install this social media app There are times I said no because I didn't think it was appropriate for children But there's a lot of things that parents can't do and ideally parents can trust that the environments that their kids are growing up in are free from unreasonably hazardous dangers And so the argument here is that TikTok is one of those unreasonably hazardous dangers that shouldn't be available to children even if the parents are doing everything they can So let's discuss some defenses by TikTok TikTok says that this challenge has been around before the app was started has not been a TikTok trend and people seem to learn it from other sources Other than TikTok are those good arguments They get to the causation topic that we were discussing earlier There's a lot of ways in which kids encourage each other to do really dangerous things And that kids emulate wide range of media depictions that they see and we can't hold all of those legally responsible So the fact that there might be other channels for the information to reach the child is actually a potential defense if it undermines the causation question that parents will have to show But otherwise the fact that the child could have gone the information from somewhere else doesn't really act as a defense if in fact the child got the information from TikTok What about the fact that apparently this was a craze so a lot of kids did this Well I think that gets back to this question about is TikTok unreasonably hazardous This is unreasonably dangerous And as we know there's lots of videos on TikTok that don't hurt anybody And in fact might make people better And so it's a little awkward to say that TikTok is part of the problem because they have this wide range of videos anywhere from things that make our lives better to things that put us at great risk And we kind of.
NBA Front Office w/ Keith Smith & Trevor Lane
"eric goldman" Discussed on NBA Front Office w/ Keith Smith & Trevor Lane
"But I can't imagine they're expecting a great return for Eric Goldman not on the contract that he's got right now and given his production, given his age, there's not there's not teams tripping over themselves to go trade for Eric Gordon. He's a good player, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that he's anybody's top of their list or wish list in terms of targets. So if you can get something for him if you're Houston, if you get a couple of firsts or something or maybe a first and a second might be more reasonable. Okay, cool, and you have to absorb a few contracts for guys that you might not really be that interested in Kevin Knox or something? You probably do it. Yeah, I feel like a protected first feels right. They have that Charlotte first. I believe it's got weird protections on. I want to say it's like top 18 protected for several years, and then it might reduce by a pick or two going down. So then that might be the one that you look at throwing them there. They do have like I said, that future Dallas pick, which is top ten protected. That one I'd be a little less inclined to give up for Gordon, but that Charlotte won. They kind of got it for nothing anyway. It was for kaya. That was one Charlotte traded up to draft Kai Jones. Last year's draft that was the compensation that they sent and that was a guy. That was an extra pick for the next then. So yeah, you turn an extra pick into a helpful player like Eric Gordon, but why not? And again, if this was like one where the contract didn't match so well with their other contracts, I'd say dad probably avoid this trade, but it does. So why not? You know, you mentioned that Derrick Rose and Eric Gordon AAU connection. And I want to hit you with something. It's a concept that I thought was really interesting..
WTOP
"eric goldman" Discussed on WTOP
"C Law license was suspended today. The suspension by the District Court of Appeals was triggered automatically after New York state suspended the law license last month. That suspension in New York is temporary, pending a discipline. Very hearing. Giuliani has actively challenged the results of last year's election on behalf of former President Trump and had been an inactive member of the D. C bar in good Standing. Meanwhile, former President Trump says he's part of a new lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google. Trump claims he and other conservatives have been wrongfully censored by the big tech companies. He's been permanently banned from Twitter and his band from Facebook for at least another two years following the capital riot were demanding an end to the shadow banning A stop to the silencing and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing and canceling that you know so well. Our case will prove this censorship is unlawful. It's unconstitutional and it's completely un American. Trump was taken off those platforms as well as YouTube over comments he made during and after the interaction Professor Eric Goldman, the associate dean for research at Santa Clara University School of Law tells w. T. O p Tonight. Similar lawsuits against Big Companies have fallen on their faces. The short story is that the Constitution divides between regulation of the government and non regulation of private actors. The INET services are private actors. It's a very simple legal question. And so he's trying to color that issue with arguments that aren't going to work read more about the Trump lawsuit. At w t o p dot com Former Frederick, Maryland pediatrician facing numerous charges of sexual abuse of Children, but a county Circuit court judge has ruled 70 year old Ernesto Torres is income. Competent to stand trial. Ernesto Torres continues to be held in a hospital. But the judge's ruling means he's not about to face a criminal trial. Even though he's charged with 98 sex offenses against 19 victims. Frederick County State's attorney Charlie Smith, is disappointed in the ruling. Unfortunately, are victims aren't going to get their day in court. They're not going to have an ability to confront their offender. And that's that's just really unfortunate. The state's expert psychiatrist says Torres is competent to stand trial. The defendant, psychiatrist says he isn't because he has a delusional disorder. There'll be another competency review in 90 days, particularly on O w T o P News. The death toll from Covid 19 approaches another sobering milestone. The latest data from Johns Hopkins University shows the global death toll nears four million. And while Nature's tribes have been made, experts say, more needs to be done, especially with the emergence of new variants right here in the US Dr. Lisa Markakis is senior director of infection prevention with Johns Hopkins. She says the summer means see lower transmission.
Newsradio 600 KOGO
"eric goldman" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO
"It's all free. We just want you to be here in our public forum because we'll sell ads to you. Why is that? Not In essence, a case of fraud because now we've got people being restricted in ways that they aren't understanding why they're being restricted. So you should from talking about public forums, which only governments can create and establishing patients for their constituents to talk to each other. Not according to Preform doctrine, only according to premieres, But go ahead. Not according to pray not according to Prune yards, and not according to this recent Supreme Court, ruling that Trump's Twitter that the Internet service well with Republicans, and that's now a matter of law. That's now a matter of law. That's constitutional while we may not like it, but that's variety. With that particular case. That case said that Trump created a public forum. It didn't say that Twitter as a service became a public forum. Really makes a difference, and courts have rejected consistently. The argument that you're making that the case stood for the proposition now that Twitter itself with the public forum because of the fact that government great public forums on it. But your fraud argument I think is actually an interesting one because you kind of have to read the whole package. He pointed out that the Internet services provide their services usually for and they say, Here's the deal. You gotta buy our house rules. You don't get to come and say whatever you want. You have to say it within these certain confines. And so if you're going to say that they're engaging in fraud, you have to look at what do they say off the entire communications with users? Do they say you have an unrestricted unlimited right to speak, or you can speak as if you comply with our house rules. If it's the latter, there's no fraud at all. Alright, Eric. Thank you so much for stopping by. We do disagree. We'll see where this goes. I think it's obviously a top issue that people are talking about. And For some of us. It's a matter of constitutional rights. And for others. It's a matter of well the right of private companies to govern their affairs. Appreciate you stopping by. That's Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law associate dean of research are coming up. I don't think that the strongest case against the Internet providers has been made in this lawsuit. It is certainly a case that may prevail, but I do think we have to explore the issue of fraud. I think that is stronger, particularly for a class action lawsuit coming up. I'll explain why first traffic.
Newsradio 600 KOGO
"eric goldman" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO
"The day My report is Eric Goldman, He's associate Dean for research and a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Eric, Thanks for stopping by Yeah. Thanks for having me. So in a very brief indictment against this lawsuit, explain why the court should throw this lawsuit out. Yes, So Actually, there are three lawsuits so that former Trump filed against the social media services and at their core, They say that the social media services have become like the government sufficient to be governed by the constitutional protections. That restrained government behavior and snow credible argument that any of the social media services are the government their private actors. As a result, they get the protection that the Constitution provides to private publishers to exercise editorial described That's a good summation. Um do you think that the social media giant's I know that you don't like the the theory being advanced in these cases here? Is there a inappropriate proper Challenge to the social media giant's restricting speech on their platforms because there's a lot of people out there who feel that they're unfairly silenced. In what has really become an important public town hall. Uh, yeah, They found out that people want to have their say on the Internet services, but they aren't the only game in town and I think that's really important to recognize a lot of times people really want. Including what President Trump valued the most was the access to those Internet services audiences what we called free reach, as opposed to free speech. And so the bottom line is that we can't expect we are entitled to free of our of our message is we have to go earn that. And so really, when we think about the social media giant's as you describe it, we should acknowledge that they aren't the only place that we have a opportunity to say. But there's a place to reach an audience that we have to pay by those places rules if we want the to reach the audience. Okay. Uh, it's a kind of a logical argument, but it doesn't seem to fit the the prune eared shopping center versus Robin's case where the U. S Supreme Court. 1980 affirmed that shopping centers were areas of free speech because, in essence they had created and represented to the public that they were public gathering spaces. And this all stemmed from a California case where some kids wanted a petition regarding something at the United Nations and a shopping centre said this is private property. We can restrict. Um, in your in your argument there, it seems to fly in the face of premiered because one a private venue even if there are private sector actor. Puts themselves out there to the public as a gathering spot or as a place where you may converse and may expect a town hall like environment. They cannot start then, uh, choosing what content they want to provide. So how do you reconcile that with the argument you just made Uh, yeah, First, let's just acknowledge the hard case really should be anathema to most conservatives. It says that private property owners don't actually own the property They think they own. They don't have the exclusionary rights that we normally associated with property ownership. So if we really believe in property rights, we should cream yard as a worrisome incursion into those rights. But in terms of the applicability of premier to the online sector, Um I both persuaded the matter of matter of factual analogy but also as a matter of legal president, premier, It has nothing to do with the online environment. It's simply apples and oranges, whatever incursions would allow and physical safe. Yeah, but hold one second again. I think that's a specious argument. When you say online is not the same as physical, because guess what online is no different than physical because online's convenience is that it brings people together without physical limitations that the whole concept of going online and being virtual. If you've ever been to a zoom meeting, you kind of know that pretty much on the face, but Now let's go to the next element, which is the Supreme Court also ruled that President Trump violated free speech laws. Uh and this was in the case where he started using the Twitter platform in the Facebook platform features the software the features. To ban and silence people who were criticizing him. And in the case, I think it was two years ago, the courts ruled that his Twitter account was indeed a quote public. Forum. That's their words, not mine. I link that back to prune your words because they talked about a public forum there as well. I know that Trump is being a little hypocritical here because he banned people's speech himself and was caught for it and it was was slapped by the courts for it. But aren't aren't the same rules applying here that that the software is being used by staff at these agencies that these companies to limit free speech. Shouldn't that precedent apply here? Uh, I'm not sure where to go with that. The, um when President Trump blocked users being able to talk to each other On Twitter. Um he was acting in an official government capacity. In fact, he acknowledge that in today's complaints, um and so he was acting as the government squelch speech that censorship that violates the Constitution. That's a pretty straight board documents. When an Internet service chooses what it thinks the sitter its audience. It's exercising editorial discretion. The kind of discussion of the Constitution protects so that it really matters who's doing the deciding and what their legal status is. When a government official says, You can't talk to each other. Censorship with a price and he says, We don't want to publish this. That's free speech. It's free speech, but it gets into that whole issue of a public forum, which again I think the important part of that case against Trump is not that they were saying, Hey, you restricted free speech. That's what they did say. But the fact that the courts have already held that these Internet social media giants are indeed public forums. That's the important, uh, a applicability of those cases. And it's not something from 1980 like pruned yards. This is something from just two years ago, and ironically, it happened to involve President Trump. But the courts have said that these Internet providers are indeed public forms. So my question to you as I think, a lover of the Constitution and a lover of the law. As I am. Um, how many more restriction does there have to be before? There's a problem? Before we can actually say either. It's a constitutional issue or even a case of fraud against people because they were told, Come and sign up for Facebook and share your family's photos and talk to your friends about various things in your life and share your opinions. And in exchange, we won't charge you with thing, Eric. We won't charge your thing..
WTOP
"eric goldman" Discussed on WTOP
"Tomorrow afternoon. It will run through Friday. Day morning, and this covers a good chunk of Maryland and Arrundell Calvert, Cecil Charles, Prince George's, along with Southeast Harford, Southern Baltimore in ST Mary's County, so basically the eastern part of Maryland. Also, northern Virginia King George will keep an eye on this all through the day tomorrow. Stay with us here on W T O P. 3 41 former president. Trump says he's part of a lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google. Trump claims that he and other conservatives have been wrongfully censored by the three big tech companies. He's been prematurely or sorry, permanently banned from Twitter and is banned from Facebook for at least two years after the capital riot were demanding an end to the shadow banning A stop to the silencing and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing and canceling that you know so well. Our case will prove this censorship is unlawful. It's unconstitutional and it's completely un American. Trump was removed from those platforms as well as YouTube over comments he made during and after the insurrection. He continues to make baseless claims that the 2020 race was stolen from him well moments ago. Professor Eric Goldman, who's the associate dean for research at Santa Clara University School of Law, joined us to talk about the lawsuit. And he says there have been similar suits against big tech companies in the past, but they failed. The short story is said the Constitution divides between regulation of the government and non regulation. The private actors. The Inet services are private actors. It's a very simple legal question. And so he's trying to color that issue with arguments that aren't going to work in other legal news of federal judge will not block some challenged portions of Georgia's new election law ahead of to run off elections scheduled for next week, but that judge did not rule out the possibility for future elections..
WGN Programming
A protected right? Free speech and social media
"President Trump was banned from Facebook and permanently banned from Twitter. For certain inciting language. We also watched his Amazon suspended the right wing social media platform parlor from its sight lawsuit ensued. It's pending. People are crying. First amendment has been violated. What are your rights are their First Amendment rights when it comes to Social Media and consortium media banned people for reasons that it feels are appropriate. Joining us to talk about this is very interesting is she was Eric Goldman. Who is a professor of LOT Santa Clara University School of Law in the Silicon Valley, his co director of the high tech Law Institute, and he is gonna explain it all to us. Hi, Professor Goldman. Thank you for joining me. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. I'm gonna start by asking you Is there a first Amendment right that a person has to use Twitter. The short answer is no. The First Amendment only applies to state actors entities of the government. Since Twitter is a private actor, private publisher. It's not covered by obligations that the government is So in and I just I wanna explain it this way. If I am saying things that are harmful or offensive, and I say to Twitter what you have to publish them, it doesn't create a First Amendment problem for Twitter. Meaning Twitter can't be forced to publish things that it doesn't believe are appropriate. Is that a fair way to look at? Yeah, that's 100% correct. In fact, if you look at the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, And so when Twitter is choosing to publish their party content, it's acting is a function of the press. So the First Amendment applies under that freedom of the press obligation Now, people there's something about it that Is driving everyone crazy because in this country, we believe we can say anything at any time. And who is it? Who are our Amazon? And who is Facebook? And who is Twitter to tell us what we should be hearing and not hearing. Explain to our listeners. Is this fair and I guess there's two questions. Is it fair? And what are the legalities of that? And what are the What are the ramifications of that? Yeah, it's the same question that we have with your own radio station that everyone's listen to. Right now. That's radio stations are obligated to provide air time to any listener who wants to call in. He just him screaming in terms of who calls in and then if someone's out of control, saying things that are inappropriate, you're going to cut the mic off and none of that. Whatever assume is a violation, their First Amendment rights, they would say. That we expect this radio station Tonto cater to its audience. So the entire premise of um WGN making sure that the broadcast continents fit for its listeners. It's identical to the thought process that we applied to places like Twitter or Amazon that they're going to publish what they think it's fit for their audience. I'm going to give out our phone numbers. I'm better. Some people have some questions for our professor here. 3129817 200 Let me play doubles advocate here and you look at the statistics on where people get news and this is so different than it used to be. When I was a kid. We was all the newspapers and and news on television, And now much of it is done on social media Getting news from The Internet and and things that are published online. How fair is it to have certain people be in charge of deciding what's harmful, inoffensive and what's not, and a lot of people are saying, you know, I hear all this horrible racist stuff that we, you know, on Twitter, but yet we are president can't be on Twitter. And what did he say? And what How is it that that was worse than what somebody else said? How is this fair? And how should we deal with this from a legal perspective going forward? Well, I think that people have very different views about what's fair. So I find that when we start shifting the evaluation metric there, um I think that we're probably not going to end up agreeing that a zoo community But just you went back to talking about how things were when you were kids. I don't know how far apart we are in aged, But when I was a kid in the mid 19 seventies, there was one local newspaper, and there were three television stations that could reach a community, right? WGN was one of them on and in those days, um even in when there was such Linda channels to reach a community there was a Supreme Court case called Miami Herald versus Tonio with the Supreme Court said You can't force that newspaper the only one that's catering to that local market to publish content that they don't want to publish that violates our freedom of the press. And so, it's said. That's true, even though that paper might have a local monopoly, even though there's only that one. We still don't think that that's permissible under the First Amendment. We're making incursion on their free speech rights. So you see why the conversation about fairness is so difficult because I want the right deal. Say whatever I want whenever I want. You said that earlier, um but but the reality is that we have to look at all the different competing interests when we think about Uh, who gets the right to say What toe Which audiences? Okay, so again, I'm just gonna go over this, because is there any obligation on the part of Twitter? Let's say to be fair, meaning if I said the same thing you said, and they cut me off and they didn't cut you off. Do I have a right to sue? Do I have a right to somehow have a legal argument that I'm not being treated fairly and I deserve to be treated fairly. It's a really great question, and I think it really gets at the heart of the challenges or bedeviling services like Facebook or Twitter. They really aspire to treat like cases equally. That if the Jackson birds, we say, said, by people in the same circumstance that they would apply the same rules to those that's an overwhelming challenge. It's actually not possible with the volume and scale that services like that engage in. It's simply not possible them toe always treat like cases equally, despite their best efforts, despite their intent. Um, but the reality is that because they're deciding what's safe for their audience, even if they make an arbitrary decision, one of which a content that was okay on day one from person A first would be a day two is cut off. That's their prerogative, and that's actually quite legally protected and their several layers legal protection. Provide Twitter Facebook, the ability to make those classifications sessions decisions, even though they're not going to get him all