The Justices Figure Out that Internet Law Is Hard

The Supreme Court heard hours and hours of oral arguments today brought by a trade association called NetChoice against laws restricting content moderation in Florida and Texas. It's the big First Amendment case of the year, and we sat through the whole oral argument.
Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Alan Rozenshtein, and Kyle Langvardt of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. They talked about where the justices seem to be leaning on this case, why they think the record is inadequate and underdeveloped, and why they're grumpy about it. They also talked about whether we can predict where they seem to be headed and about why this case that doesn't involve Section 230 seems to involve Section 230.

[@denkerdunsmuir3370]

P.S. This is a great panel. I learned a lot that I need to go online and research i.e. net neutrality, Section 230 C (2), for starters. I love Harry esp since he and Prof. Ben Meisalis/Meidas Mighty! on the MTNW podcast yesterday were discussing Harry's distinguished career where he clerked for one of my most favorite SCOTUS justices, Justice Thurgood Marshall! I grew up seeing figures like Justice Marshall as heroes! Marshall was among the many post WWII brave ones who acted with honor and courage on behalf of us all -- qualities we could all benefit from acting like we are intimately familiar with now, and expressing them, during these trying times circa 2024.

[@tammyburke9453]

EXCELLENT content with superb legal minds thoroughly enjoyable with an impressive kudos to everyone on this show NOT talking over one another, How'd you do that with 4 speakers? Mmmm good!

[@toonmoene8757]

Shouldn't "infrastructure" mean that it has to be owned by the Government, and therefore be subject to the 1st amendment ...
Don't get me started about companies "regulating" the Internet by not adhering to its rules (like DNS) without being regulated by the Government.