Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court Ruling Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июл 2024
- The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled to dismiss Murthy v. Missouri. The justices threw out lower-court rulings that Federal officials and White House staffers leaned on social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom and a former State Department official, explains what this ruling means for free speech in the U.S.
Watch the full episode here: l.prageru.com/45MJhqz
📲 Download the FREE PragerU app: prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79
Follow PragerU on social media!
Instagram ➡️ ( / prageru )
Twitter ➡️ ( / prageru )
Facebook ➡️ ( / prageru )
Thank God for freedom of speech.
The ENTIRE Constitution is at risk.
America is at risk. Being ruined and lost more and more each day it seems to me.
I support my home state of Missouri 100%! Basically freedom fighters fr fr.
Gotta rep for STL🤙
There have always been kooks and liars spewing nonsense. This is nothing new, but now those in power want to eliminate anything that might detract from what they want. Even back before the Revolutionary War, there were people who thought rebelling against England was a fool’s errand, but no one tried to shut them down. It is the basic idea of debating ideas to see which one makes the most sense. No restriction of expression of ideas should be allowed.
Muskets were used in the war for independence, therefore the 2nd amendment is meant to acknowledge every American's God-given right to own weapons of war
Cannon balls, are not ball bearings... they are filled with explosives and have fuzes..
They are literally ordnance.
Why can't we have ordnance?
The best way to combat misinformation is to debunk it with facts and references/proof, not regulating speech…🙄
Sadly finding facts/truth is getting harder and harder. Just ask Google.
THis case was about suppression of Accurate Speech and the Promotion of Government Misinformation Like Safe and Effective.
This is the most sensible point of view regarding the constitution and how it relates or doesn’t relate to the modern world. It needs major amendments.
When Mike Benz speaks, Chuck Norris listens.
Still waiting for the ruling and explanation of the ruling...geez louise
well, then they'll say the first amendment didn't anticipate telephones, radio, tv, the internet as a whole...
Clearly explained. Thank you
PRAGERU!!!!!
This is exactly the thought of the right to travel people. If the 1st couldn't anticipate social media and the 2nd couldn't anticipate higher power weapons then the right to travel couldn't anticipate automobiles.
People have always communicated via the most modern platform; people have always used the improved guns; people have always traveled with the convyance of the day.
The tree of lyberty is absolutely fammished.
It’s crazy how someone can think ignoring the constitution is constitutional
Be careful when you say automatic weapons. There are semi-auto and full-auto. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal without a special permit. Semi auto is legal. Semi just means that you have to pull the trigger for every bullet to fire. Full auto is where you can hold down the trigger to discharge multiple rounds. There is also burst, but that isn't important for this. The politicians like to use just the word automatic, but this is misleading. It's like saying that you drive an automatic manual car.
Would people make a habit of always saying "or so I've been told" instead of "I know" it would totally undermine any notion that the government has to rein in misinformation ("As we sees it. No bias here. Trust us.")
There was an automatic firearm produced 50 years before the Founding Fathers even thought about making a country, so that 2nd Amendment argument is nonsense. They knew firearms, like all machinery, would evolve and become better.
There had been all kinds of inventions of firearms in Europe and elsewhere that had modern idea, but would require better metallurgy or manufacturing. The writers of constitution certainly saw the probability that weapons would continue to improve. Yet they made no provision to separate or identify between what a citizen may posses, versus an army. They anticipated so many things. If they has meant what democrats want, they would have written it.
It's coupcoup how they have to seize the communications first. The Empire was born post WW2 with nobody stopping it.
Bruh
Lol
Wow, that barely explained anything. Try again.😂
About Missouri stick with the constitution of United States that gives it the right to even exist. Not demand that the people have to be under some type of bureaucratic democracy rule and their constitutional republic of foundation that they were given from the founding fathers. She fought Britain for it. That's the foundation we're not supposed to be under Tierney. But yet if Tierney does become out of some type of bureau, democratic legislation to be that takes away or found invites, and we are to slip off that government and make a new government. Don't vote for a new president make a new governmenton the constitution of foundations in which to be erratic Democratic government which has been established exists now. We send all the laws which has been established that take away the 10 established fundamental rights to the American people. Or at least have somebody get in there that can smell not like chocolate chip and doesn't have $500 billion that they could buy the moon but yet they're real estate.
First comment🎉😂
That is not the argument.
21st, 2 July 2024