WEBVTT - Supreme Court Could Break the Internet

0:00:00.440 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>Yes, this is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.080 --> 0:00:12.800
<v Speaker 1>It's been the subject of controversy for years. Section two

0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.600
<v Speaker 1>thirty of the Communications Decency Act a legal shield for

0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:20.520
<v Speaker 1>social media platforms, and Congress has been debating whether it

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:24.040
<v Speaker 1>should be reformed or revoked. Repealing the law may be

0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the one thing that President Joe Biden and former President

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump agree on, of course, not for the same reasons.

0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 1>We must hold social media platforms accountable for the national

0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 1>experiment they're conducting on our children for profit. The big

0:00:41.440 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>tech persists in coordination with the mainstream media. We must

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:50.400
<v Speaker 1>immediately strip them of their Section to thirty protection. There's

0:00:50.440 --> 0:00:53.800
<v Speaker 1>been no action in Congress in the face of partisan differences,

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:57.040
<v Speaker 1>and now the Supreme Court has decided to step into

0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 1>the middle of this politically fraught debate or whether some

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:04.000
<v Speaker 1>of the world's most powerful tech companies should continue to

0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:08.080
<v Speaker 1>be protected or should be held accountable for third party content.

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara

0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:15.400
<v Speaker 1>University School of Law and co director of the school's

0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:18.559
<v Speaker 1>High Tech Law Institute. So Eric tell us about Section

0:01:18.600 --> 0:01:21.880
<v Speaker 1>to thirty, Section two three. He says, that websites aren't

0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:25.320
<v Speaker 1>liable for third party content. It's a really simple premise.

0:01:25.440 --> 0:01:28.600
<v Speaker 1>The idea is that people who post content take responsibility forward,

0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:31.600
<v Speaker 1>but the services that they used to post that content don't.

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:35.720
<v Speaker 1>Both cases the court is going to consider involve terrorist

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>attacks abroad, one in Paris in and another in istanbul In.

0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Tell us about the plaintiffs arguments against Google and Twitter, Well,

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:49.040
<v Speaker 1>really both of them involved pretty much the same set

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>of facts. They involved terrorist attacks abroad that were allegedly

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 1>related to social media, and the relationship can vary based

0:01:58.520 --> 0:02:01.600
<v Speaker 1>on the facts, but the general gist is that the

0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 1>terrorist organizations recruited and radicalized readers online, and because of that,

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the services now take responsibility for the actions that are

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.839
<v Speaker 1>done by these terrorists organizations or the people that they radicalized.

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.919
<v Speaker 1>So are the plaintiffs in these cases complaining about the

0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:23.080
<v Speaker 1>algorithm generator recommendations. Well, on the part of it, you

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 1>could look at it a little bit more broadly that

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:27.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the starting premise is that the terrorist organization

0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>should never be online in the first instance, and if

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 1>they are online, then the social media services giving them

0:02:34.520 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>that support now take responsibility for any of the consequences

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>that flow from the visibility that they gain online. So

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 1>it's really one of these situations where social media services

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:49.119
<v Speaker 1>is just one of many possible contributors to the outcome,

0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 1>and we don't hold everyone who has that kind of

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:56.680
<v Speaker 1>tenuous connection to a terrorist attack responsible for the attack.

0:02:56.680 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>In the first instance. Isn't it a leap for the

0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 1>plane gifts to go from showing social media postings to

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 1>proving that the platforms were responsible for international terrorism. It

0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.240
<v Speaker 1>is a leap, and it really gets to the core

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:18.760
<v Speaker 1>of the underlying social question here. Assuming that a terrorist

0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:21.720
<v Speaker 1>attack is done by an individual who has had many

0:03:21.800 --> 0:03:25.240
<v Speaker 1>relationships in life. They have a landlord, or they have

0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:28.680
<v Speaker 1>a home dssociations, they have a job, they took the

0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:31.359
<v Speaker 1>bus to work, or they have an internet access provider

0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>who allowed them to connect to the internet. All of

0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:37.760
<v Speaker 1>those people in theory are all some very indirect contributor

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.839
<v Speaker 1>to the activities of this individual, but we don't hold

0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 1>them responsible. So we make a distinction in the law

0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>between what we call bus for causation could never have

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 1>happened without this person doing what they did, and what

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>we call proximate causation, the people who actually are close

0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:56.280
<v Speaker 1>enough to the outcome that they could have changed the outcome.

0:03:56.440 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 1>And it's that last piece. The idea that social media

0:03:59.040 --> 0:04:01.880
<v Speaker 1>services are the pros in the cause of a distant

0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>terrorist attack just doesn't really pass the sanity check. We

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:08.400
<v Speaker 1>look at them, we say that's too far, that doesn't

0:04:08.400 --> 0:04:10.760
<v Speaker 1>make sense. And a number of the related cases to

0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:12.920
<v Speaker 1>the ones that are going to Supreme Court have failed

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:15.320
<v Speaker 1>for that rare reason. The course said, we cannot hold

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:20.000
<v Speaker 1>social media services as the cause of these unfortunate events.

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:23.200
<v Speaker 1>So is the Supreme Court going to decide that question?

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they're likely to address the causation piece,

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:29.560
<v Speaker 1>but it's impossible to ignore. It's the same instinct that

0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.160
<v Speaker 1>you had when you ask the question. The Supreme Court

0:04:32.200 --> 0:04:34.679
<v Speaker 1>justices are going to look at this case and say, wait,

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:37.600
<v Speaker 1>why are they the defendant? Why are we talking about

0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 1>the social media services when there's all these other people

0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:44.120
<v Speaker 1>who are equally situated and no more responsible. However, the

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 1>legal question in front of the court doesn't reach that

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.360
<v Speaker 1>causation question, so they may not talk about it. They

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:52.160
<v Speaker 1>may not even feel like they have the authority to

0:04:52.200 --> 0:04:55.600
<v Speaker 1>do so. So the Nine Circuit, in the same ruling

0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:59.800
<v Speaker 1>that it absolved Google, basically for the Paris attacks, said

0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:04.120
<v Speaker 1>that Twitter, Google, and Facebook had to face claims that

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:08.120
<v Speaker 1>they played a role in the Istanbul attack. Explain the

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 1>difference there. So, some of it's just based on the

0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:14.920
<v Speaker 1>way in which the arguments are made. These cases have

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.279
<v Speaker 1>each had their own unique twist to them, and so

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>in that particular case, the question is actually a technical

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:26.960
<v Speaker 1>statutory question. Congress enacted liability for people who might have

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 1>played a role in contributing to terrorist attacks and indapted

0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>their case. So the court said that the statute didn't apply,

0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:35.920
<v Speaker 1>and so the way that the case was framed for

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:39.839
<v Speaker 1>the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit said that statute could apply,

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.360
<v Speaker 1>we need to go and ask more questions about it.

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:44.720
<v Speaker 1>And that's now what Twitter is appealing up to the

0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:47.320
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court to ask the question whether or not the

0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>statute even reaches the activity. If it doesn't, then Twitter

0:05:50.680 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>is not liable because the statute never created liability. Is

0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:59.719
<v Speaker 1>it happenstance that both these involved terrorist attacks on foreign soil? No,

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:02.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's happened stance, because, in fact, many

0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:04.800
<v Speaker 1>of the cases that have been brought in this genre,

0:06:04.839 --> 0:06:06.799
<v Speaker 1>and they're about twenty of them, that have been foiled

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:10.040
<v Speaker 1>across the country, have involved foreign terrorist activity, somemin that

0:06:10.160 --> 0:06:13.159
<v Speaker 1>have involved domestic activity. Ultimately, I don't think that it

0:06:13.200 --> 0:06:16.159
<v Speaker 1>really matters from a legal standpoint. There's so many legal

0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:19.080
<v Speaker 1>reasons why the services should be liable regardless of where

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:22.200
<v Speaker 1>the terrorist activity took place. So these cases are the

0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 1>first guest of Section two thirty at the Supreme Court.

0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:29.120
<v Speaker 1>What does it tell you that the Supreme Court agreed

0:06:29.200 --> 0:06:32.880
<v Speaker 1>to hear them when, like so many other cases this term,

0:06:32.960 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 1>it didn't have to, meaning there was no circuit split

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>that it had to resolve. Yeah. So one of the

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 1>most common reasons of Supreme Court takes the case is

0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:46.120
<v Speaker 1>because of circuit splits, where two federal courts are in

0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:48.680
<v Speaker 1>disagreement with each other and they need Supreme Court to

0:06:48.720 --> 0:06:51.880
<v Speaker 1>weigh in and resolve the dispute. The problem, and this

0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:54.920
<v Speaker 1>fits their case, is that the nine Circuit Court of

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:59.120
<v Speaker 1>Appeals opinion had its own intrinsic split. There were three

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:02.400
<v Speaker 1>judges on a panel and they wrote three different opinions

0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 1>that were wildly different from each other. They were not

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>in sync with each other. So though there wasn't a

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>circuit split, there was an intra panel split. Now Normally

0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 1>those get resolved by what's called an on bond procedure.

0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 1>The Federal Appeals Court can say, we need to have

0:07:17.360 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 1>more judges listened to this case so that we can

0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:22.640
<v Speaker 1>figure out how to come up with a more harmonized resolution.

0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 1>The Ninth Circuit didn't do that. So because the Ninth

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:29.360
<v Speaker 1>circum opinion was so messy and the Ninth Circuit didn't

0:07:29.440 --> 0:07:32.280
<v Speaker 1>clean it up, it created the possibility for the Supreme

0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:34.560
<v Speaker 1>Court to say, there's a mess here that we need

0:07:34.600 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 1>to resolve. Two of the opinions also basically said we

0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:40.400
<v Speaker 1>think Section two thirties a problem, and so it created

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:43.920
<v Speaker 1>a flag for the Supreme Court to pay attention, there's

0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:47.720
<v Speaker 1>a statutory problem here that needs attention. Maybe you ought

0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:49.720
<v Speaker 1>to take a look. So it was a combination of

0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 1>the messy opinion plus what the judges said that I

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:56.280
<v Speaker 1>think in fact of the Supreme Court interest. Justice Clarence

0:07:56.320 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Thomas had already expressed interest and indicated that he's willing

0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:04.440
<v Speaker 1>to change the law if Congress isn't. Well, we have

0:08:04.520 --> 0:08:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to assume that Justice Thomas was in favor of hearing

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:10.840
<v Speaker 1>this case because he's basically begged plaintiffs to bring Section

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:13.040
<v Speaker 1>to three cases to him so he can find a

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:15.280
<v Speaker 1>way to try and invistrate it. So we know that

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Justice Thomas is already coming in as an extreme Section

0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:21.480
<v Speaker 1>to three skeptic. He's literally told us when nobody asked

0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:25.200
<v Speaker 1>him to. Google's chief executive officer told lawmakers last year

0:08:25.240 --> 0:08:29.440
<v Speaker 1>that revoking Section to thirty would mean that platforms would

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:32.760
<v Speaker 1>either over filter content or not be able to filter

0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:36.439
<v Speaker 1>content at all. Do you agree with that? I do,

0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>and it's a very well known phenomenon with online content.

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:43.959
<v Speaker 1>It's something that I call the moderator's dilemma. The idea

0:08:44.040 --> 0:08:48.480
<v Speaker 1>is that if you're liable for trying and failing, then

0:08:48.600 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 1>either you don't try it all so that you can't fail,

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 1>so you just let everything go through, therefore you haven't

0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:59.719
<v Speaker 1>intervened at all, or you overrespond and make sure you

0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:03.080
<v Speaker 1>don't fail, which is impossible, but it leads to lots

0:09:03.080 --> 0:09:05.640
<v Speaker 1>of collateral damage as well. There is, of course, the

0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:08.320
<v Speaker 1>third option, which Google is unlikely to do but many

0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 1>other services will, which is to exit the industry and

0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>say that it's not profitable to do nothing or to

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:16.720
<v Speaker 1>be perfect, and therefore we have to simply find another

0:09:16.760 --> 0:09:19.720
<v Speaker 1>line of business. Let's say Section two thirty is gone.

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:23.439
<v Speaker 1>What effect would that have on social media companies? It's

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:26.840
<v Speaker 1>not just social media companies that the entire Internet. So

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:29.680
<v Speaker 1>much of the Internet is driven by user generated content,

0:09:29.960 --> 0:09:32.920
<v Speaker 1>us talking to each other, and Section two thirty is

0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:36.200
<v Speaker 1>the legal foundation that enables those conversations to take place

0:09:36.520 --> 0:09:40.800
<v Speaker 1>without the services being liable for facilitate. They're enabling those conversations.

0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:43.600
<v Speaker 1>So without Section to thirty, many of those conversations will

0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:47.240
<v Speaker 1>simply stop. They won't be possible to do anymore because

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>of the fact that the legal liability will overwhelm the benefit. Now,

0:09:50.600 --> 0:09:53.640
<v Speaker 1>some of the services that are existing today are big

0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:56.080
<v Speaker 1>enough and powerful enough that they will either find a

0:09:56.120 --> 0:09:59.920
<v Speaker 1>way to thread the legal needle and accept whatever collateral

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.960
<v Speaker 1>image comes from that, or they will move towards professionally

0:10:03.960 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 1>produced content. They'll stop letting users talk to each other.

0:10:07.160 --> 0:10:11.160
<v Speaker 1>They'll pay some people who they trust to submit content

0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:13.719
<v Speaker 1>that they will accept the legal risk for, and as

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:16.920
<v Speaker 1>a result, it becomes a lot more of the Internet

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:20.680
<v Speaker 1>being people talking to us, not us talking to each other.

0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 1>As I understood, this was about algorithm generated recommendations. Could

0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the court just eliminate those in theory one one solution

0:10:31.400 --> 0:10:34.880
<v Speaker 1>is that the Supreme Court could say that quote, algorithmic

0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 1>recommendations are excluded from Section two thirty, but Section two

0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:41.880
<v Speaker 1>thy otherwise remains attacked. That would be a massive strategic

0:10:42.040 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>loss for the Internet. And the reason why is because

0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 1>there's no principled way to distinguish between algorithmic recommendations and

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:54.000
<v Speaker 1>any other promotional or curatorial functions that Internet services perform.

0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 1>So basically saying that algorithmic recommendations are out of secret

0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 1>to theory say there's no way to promote or encourage

0:11:01.480 --> 0:11:04.320
<v Speaker 1>readers to look at particular types of content and still

0:11:04.360 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>stay within Section two thirty. That would lead to an

0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:10.840
<v Speaker 1>Internet that looks a lot more like Google Drive or dropbox.

0:11:11.240 --> 0:11:15.920
<v Speaker 1>The services could only provide dumb storage lockers and a

0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:18.120
<v Speaker 1>u r L that the users go out and promote,

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 1>and that would be the only thing that that would

0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:22.959
<v Speaker 1>be covered by Section two thirty. Everything else will be gone,

0:11:23.120 --> 0:11:24.920
<v Speaker 1>and I don't think we want in their netfall of

0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Google drives. Besides Justice Thomas, are there other justices who

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:34.040
<v Speaker 1>have expressed displeasure with section to thirty and might be

0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:37.680
<v Speaker 1>willing to tamper with it. You know, it's it's a

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 1>little hard to read the judges nowadays because every speech

0:11:42.040 --> 0:11:46.440
<v Speaker 1>related question is intrinsically linked with the culture wars that

0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:50.559
<v Speaker 1>have Royal the Supreme Court. So it's unclear whether or

0:11:50.600 --> 0:11:53.120
<v Speaker 1>not judges who in the past has stood for less

0:11:53.200 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 1>government and intervention into private activity still stand for that,

0:11:57.240 --> 0:12:00.320
<v Speaker 1>or judges to believe that in other services should doing

0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:04.400
<v Speaker 1>more to remove uh content will feel that way when

0:12:04.480 --> 0:12:08.280
<v Speaker 1>it comes to the implications of that. So we're actually

0:12:08.440 --> 0:12:11.199
<v Speaker 1>kind of in an a limbo with the other judges.

0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:14.280
<v Speaker 1>We don't really know where they're likely to come out.

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:18.000
<v Speaker 1>And this is a substantial import because not only are

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:20.080
<v Speaker 1>they going to brustle with the questions in the section

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:23.480
<v Speaker 1>to thirty contexts, but there will be another appeal of

0:12:23.640 --> 0:12:26.880
<v Speaker 1>laws coming from Florida and Texas that will ask the

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>judges to weigh in further on the ability of their

0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:33.760
<v Speaker 1>own services to moderate content from users. So they're going

0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:36.360
<v Speaker 1>to be having to answer this question, and we don't

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:38.640
<v Speaker 1>know what they're going to answer in their decisions are

0:12:38.679 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 1>likely to shape the future of the Internet. So two

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:43.199
<v Speaker 1>thousand twenty three is going to be a very scary

0:12:43.240 --> 0:12:45.160
<v Speaker 1>time for the future of the Internet because it's the

0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:46.640
<v Speaker 1>room Court is going to decide it and we don't

0:12:46.640 --> 0:12:50.040
<v Speaker 1>know what they're gonna say. And Eric, the cases involving

0:12:50.320 --> 0:12:53.640
<v Speaker 1>Texas is social media law and Florida social media law,

0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:57.640
<v Speaker 1>where there's a split in the circuits involving similar laws.

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:01.160
<v Speaker 1>You think the Court will take that. I do think

0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:03.120
<v Speaker 1>they're going to take the case. And the reason why,

0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 1>impart is because of a opinion that came out of

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:10.240
<v Speaker 1>the Texas Law on the Supreme Court's shadow docket, where

0:13:10.320 --> 0:13:13.800
<v Speaker 1>three judges led by Justice Toledo, said that they think

0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:17.320
<v Speaker 1>that these cases should be granted surtiari. You only need

0:13:17.360 --> 0:13:20.200
<v Speaker 1>four votes, so if any one of the other sticks

0:13:20.240 --> 0:13:22.200
<v Speaker 1>think that they should take this case, then the votes

0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>are there. So I'm highly confident that the Supreme Court

0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:27.320
<v Speaker 1>is going to take the case, and when they do,

0:13:27.720 --> 0:13:32.040
<v Speaker 1>we have another battle royale over the future of the Internet. Finally,

0:13:32.600 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Section two thirty. Do you think it's something that Congress

0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:39.040
<v Speaker 1>should take up and work on or do you think

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:43.559
<v Speaker 1>it should just be left alone? We benefit every day,

0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:46.720
<v Speaker 1>hour by hour, off a minute by minute from section

0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:49.240
<v Speaker 1>to thirty. Though, times that we're talking to each other

0:13:49.240 --> 0:13:52.000
<v Speaker 1>in line are some of the most important and common

0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:55.080
<v Speaker 1>moments that we have used in the Internet. So even

0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:57.920
<v Speaker 1>small changes to Section two there you could have dramatic

0:13:57.960 --> 0:14:00.560
<v Speaker 1>effects on the way that we spend our time, the

0:14:00.600 --> 0:14:03.400
<v Speaker 1>way that we enjoy our lives, and the things that

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:06.360
<v Speaker 1>we're able to do. So I think we actually have

0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.360
<v Speaker 1>it pretty good from that respect in the sect that

0:14:09.559 --> 0:14:11.920
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of things that are taking place today

0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:15.160
<v Speaker 1>that only are possible because Section two three enables them.

0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:17.319
<v Speaker 1>So if Congress wants to take a look an section

0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:20.080
<v Speaker 1>to thees, that is their prerogative, and they have asked

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:24.480
<v Speaker 1>questions about algorithmic recommendations in some of their draft bills. However,

0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.200
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court should not be the ones that reshaped

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.640
<v Speaker 1>Section two thirty. If they think that Section two there's miscalibrated,

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:33.360
<v Speaker 1>they should tell Congress that, but they shouldn't go and

0:14:33.440 --> 0:14:36.120
<v Speaker 1>change it. So the fact that the Supreme Court might

0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:39.080
<v Speaker 1>change section too therey is what really panics me because

0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:43.440
<v Speaker 1>then it creates the possibility that unelected justices are making

0:14:43.440 --> 0:14:46.920
<v Speaker 1>decisions that will affect our daily lives in ways that

0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:51.680
<v Speaker 1>it's really impossible to contemplate. So the sticks are so high.

0:14:51.840 --> 0:14:55.920
<v Speaker 1>So the Court is stepping into yet another controversial area

0:14:56.000 --> 0:15:00.120
<v Speaker 1>this term. In addition to voting rights, affirmative action, and

0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:04.080
<v Speaker 1>gay rights, the environment, to name just a few. It's

0:15:04.080 --> 0:15:06.280
<v Speaker 1>going to be quite a term. Thanks so much. Eric.

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University Law School.

0:15:10.680 --> 0:15:14.480
<v Speaker 1>He's also co director of the school's High Tech Law Institute.

0:15:14.840 --> 0:15:17.160
<v Speaker 1>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:22.880
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them wherever you

0:15:22.920 --> 0:15:26.280
<v Speaker 1>get your favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:27.120
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg