Page 10 - Viewpoint Discrimination News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Facebook and it is in our best interests to make sure we have equal right to these platforms or applied evenly. jillian: where do you fall on section 230 and if it should be repealed and do you think your end result would be to have the freedom you want on these platforms? what do you think your end game should be? >> the end game should be to restore the original purpose of section 230 which was to give platforms a shield from liability and ability to moderate content on their platforms the content moderation, one of the provisions of the statute, we are not seeing good-faith implementation o...

Attorneys ethan bearman and david bruno. welcome back. statement from one of the plaintiff says black lives matter of course but so do all other human lives. posting blm signs and disallowing all lives matter signs is political speech or viewpoint discrimination. ethan. >> it's not viewpoint discrimination. it fails the public forum doctor entitled the goods going to hold up under that argument. if this is a public space, if it was a bulletin board, they would not be able to do that. the school put it up under pedagogical reasons, protected under the supreme court decision from 1988 that state...

These arguments and discussing things on the social media platform that involve your job you can engage in viewpoint discrimination, you don't like my viewpoint so you exclude me. the question, did she create a public forum by the manner she went about her twitter account. the trump case is different because they conceded he uses it for official purposes. ocasio, the court will have to determine. if they determined that. >> it is a public forum, she's conducting official business. you can follow everyone on twitter. if she puts her views out it should be treated similarly. there is no reason b...

Trademark line, fuct. what are the implications for the first amendment? >> an interesting case because you see justin kagan sort of taking a hard line here, saying the american legal system stands up for the first amendment in terms of not having viewpoint discrimination. the government doesn't get to say what's scandalous and not. but on the other hand, you are justice sotomayor, laying out the fact, are we taking a step too far towards allowing racial slurs to be trademarked and things that most people would find offensive. so there's sort of an interesting tension between even the more lib...

You can see it on his hat. they cited a provision of trademark law that makes it illegal to give trademarks that are scandalous or immoral. the supreme court said that's viewpoint discrimination. it means the trade mark office would only support trademarks if the view was consistent with society's view of what is right and proper or moral and that's viewpoint discrimination. on that basis, the maker of that clothing line can now get trademark sfrprotection for his name. interesting line up of justices. she wrote the opinion. she was joined by ruth ginsberg. >> i was going to ask you about that...