Artwork

Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Murthy v. Missouri (Standing / Social Media / First Amendment)

12:12
 
Share
 

Manage episode 425968578 series 2286679
Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Murthy v. Missouri
Missouri, alongside a few other states, sued the federal government alleging that certain federal officials illegally coordinated with social media companies to effectively silence certain viewpoints -- which they claim, amounts to these companies becoming state actors within the meaning of First Amendment jurisprudence. Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Reasoning that the objection is with the platforms, not with the named defendants, therefore, an injunction would be improper.
Read by Jeff Barnum.

  continue reading

453 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 425968578 series 2286679
Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Murthy v. Missouri
Missouri, alongside a few other states, sued the federal government alleging that certain federal officials illegally coordinated with social media companies to effectively silence certain viewpoints -- which they claim, amounts to these companies becoming state actors within the meaning of First Amendment jurisprudence. Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Reasoning that the objection is with the platforms, not with the named defendants, therefore, an injunction would be improper.
Read by Jeff Barnum.

  continue reading

453 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide