Jeff Lindnder, Harris County Flood Control District Joins Houston Morning News, July 8th, 2024

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
This election, I could do thismistakes if this race couldn't be hired.
This story President has to have communityis changing by the minute. What came
out today use radio seven forty KTRH. Well. Supreme Court spent a lot
of time going over the merits offree speech on the internet and with big

(00:20):
tech. And we know that theUnited States government, among others, has
had some influence on what you canand cannot read or hear or talk about
it online. They just have.The Federals had an interesting piece. If
the government wants to control big tech, it must do so in writing,
and those writings must be published foreverybody to see. In other words,
if you want to go ahead andcensor people, then you better admit that

(00:44):
that's what you're doing so the Americanpeople understand that that's what's happening. Jonathan
Shaw joins US partner at Dylan LawGroup. That seems only fair, don't
you think? I sure? Do? You know? Ideally the government wouldn't
be doing this, But if theyare going to be saying, what we

(01:04):
can't help social media, then weought to know that they're doing it.
What is the deal here? Becauseyou know, States we're trying to bring
and the court keeps passing things off. Is not having standing? Every time
you turn around, what is thisin legal terms? Are they just trying
to say narrowly focused on constitutional issuesand if this isn't a constitutional issue,

(01:30):
the government controlling speech, I don'tknow what is well. I don't think
they're saying it's not a constitutional issuethere there, it's a it's a highly
technical procedural issue. I think threemembers of the court felt they should have
reached the merits of the issue andsaid that this was not this was not

(01:52):
appropriate to the government be doing.Six members of the court on very technical
procedural ground said we're not going tohear this law aw suit. We're just
not going to intervene. It's notappropriate for the courts. I think it's
unfortunate that that's what they chose todo, but that's the way it is.
And so the remedy is through Congress. Congress needs to act. The

(02:14):
remedy is not in the court system, is what you're saying. So if
the remedy is in Congress, whatsort of an act should Congress pass and
how specific does it need to bein order to make sure that we aren't
centering Americans. Sure, So inan ideal world, Congress would simply say
that that the federal government should notbe doing this. But that's just not

(02:37):
that's just not in the cards.I believe Senator Paul introduced legislation to that
effect, or tried to about ayear ago, and it went nowhere for
a variety of reasons. So whatI've suggested is something that's a little bit
different. Basically, if they're goingto be doing it, they shouldn't be

(02:59):
doing it secret. Essentially, nomore quiet conversations, no more phone calls
where they put pressure on social mediacompanies the sensor information that they don't like.
Instead, any such communications have tobe in writing, and then they
have to be published so the publiccan see exactly what is going on.

(03:21):
If the government doesn't want us,doesn't doesn't think it's appropriate for social media
to include posts on things like,you know, the Lavely hypothesis, which
we now know is considered the mostlikely cause of COVID, then the government
should be upfront about that, andthen we can then people know that that

(03:42):
that that their conversations on this topicare being stifled. Well, if they
do that, then that potentially takescare of the government problem. But what
about the social media companies themselves whodo their own censorship. Well, you
know, they have a you know, if they have a First Amendment right
to put on their websites what theywant to put on their websites. And
if they turn and if because theyare too restrictive in what they put on,

(04:08):
then they're going to lose out inthe market because people want to hear
on unbridled conversations, and they'll goto somebody who offers that. Okay,
fair enough, all right, sir, thanks for insight, appreciate it.
That is Jonathan Shaw. He's apartner at Dylan Law Group. It is
six twenty seven