The Supreme Court will be putting together their agenda and a couple of the issues that could make the docket….
The Supreme Court could change the way the internet is governed next month. It will hear two cases that will challenge Section 230. Section 230 is a part of the Communications Decency Act. This act determines the rules for regulating online speech. This hearing is the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with a case fighting the 1996 act. But if the plaintiffs win, they could change how the internet is operated and used.
Both cases being tried in front of the supreme court involve using various social media platforms by terrorists. The court will decide if the owners of these social media platforms did enough to block terrorists from using their services to spread their message and recruit new members. The social media site, Youtube, is the main focus of this trial to see if they are protected under Section 230 for the algorithmic recommendation of content.
The first case was filed by the parents of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris on November 2015. Her family believes that Youtube’s algorithms push ISIS videos into people’s scope by recommending them in the suggested videos section of their platform. It is well known that many terrorist groups, including ISIS, use YouTube to recruit members to their organization from the western world.
The next update is one that seems to be in every agenda….something religious….
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could give religious conservatives an unprecedented new ability to dictate how their workplaces operate, and which workplace rules they will refuse to follow.
Yet Groff is also likely to overrule a previous Supreme Court decision that treated the interests of religious employees far more dismissively than federal law suggests that these workers should be treated.
The case, in other words, presents genuinely tricky questions about the limits of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs. But those questions will be resolved by a Supreme Court that has shown an extraordinary willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit Christian-identified conservatives.
That could lead to a scenario in which the Court announces a new legal rule that disrupts the workplace — and that potentially places far too many burdens on non-religious employees.
I have doubt that these paleo-conserv judges will do the wrong thing.
Finally remember that famous leak of a draft of the ruling on Rowe v Wade and the ensuing investigation into that leak?
Someone is likely breathing a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court said Thursday that it can’t figure out who leaked the bombshell draft opinion of the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “It is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” says the court’s unsigned report, per the Washington Post. “No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document.”
A separate report by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley notes that nearly 100 court staffers were interviewed and all presented the it-wasn’t-me defense, reports NBC News. The investigation into the unprecedented leak eight months ago is not over, but the tone of the two reports suggests little hope of a breakthrough. “Investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending,” wrote Curley. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.” Curley added that it’s unlikely anyone hacked the court’s computer system.
The country owes this person a debt of gratitude for the leak….it help show just how corrupt and uncaring these judicial slugs are towards the rights of the American people.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”