Tag Archives: telephone

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms – Texas Standard

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in two cases related to some of the worlds biggest social media platforms.

Considered by many to be two of the hottest free speech cases of the internet age, one case is from Texas, the other from Florida. And though there are slight differences between the two state laws being challenged here, the cases appear to center on a central question: do social media companies have the right to independently decide what content appears on their platforms, amplifying or removing content as they see fit?

The social media companies say their First Amendment free speech rights are being violated with the Texas and Florida laws. The states say those social media companies arent entitled to First Amendment free speech protection. And it may come down to whether a majority of the court sees social media as more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company.

Charles Rocky Rhodes, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said both of these laws are on hold and have not yet gone into effect because of pending court cases.

They were a response to some of the social media platforms de-platforming Donald Trump and other politicians in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Rhodes said. And there was a concern from Texas and from Florida that [these politicians] were being targeted because of their conservative beliefs.

And so the idea of both of these laws was to try to keep social media platforms from banning individuals or discriminating against individuals based on the viewpoints of their speech. And it also placed some very onerous burdens on social media companies with respect to disclosure requirements of their terms and their policies with respect to data management and content, and the use policies that they would be using.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

The plaintiff in the case is NetChoice, an industry association that includes most of the big platforms we all think of Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, etc.

Theyre making the play that when they are deciding which messages to amplify and which messages that they want to remove from their platform, that they are acting as the modern editor of a newspaper, and there are good precedent for the United States Supreme Court saying that a state cant tell a newspaper what to print, Rhodes said.

Theyre arguing that the same principle applies to them, that they are allowed to make editorial decisions on their private platform. And this is something that people have to keep in mind that the social media companies, as big and important as they are, are not the government. They are actually privately-owned.

Texas and Florida, however, say these companies are acting as a common carrier and therefore do not have a claim to free speech.

Theyre trying to say that social media companies are a modern equivalent of what used to be a very familiar idea of the common carrier, that they dont have the ability to discriminate with respect to their service. They have to accept everyone, Rhodes said. And the social media companies come back and say, well, common carriers were different because they never engaged in their own expressive activities.

Common carriers did sometimes transmit the speech of others, like a telegraph would be the old example, or telephone But they did not actually engage in their own expressive activities. And the social media companies are claiming that we do because we are trying to communicate messages. Were creating news feeds for individuals. Were trying to increase, of course, advertising streams that we are engaged in expressive activities in a way that your internet service provider or in a way that your telephone company is not.

As this case goes forward, Rhodes said the states arguments are rooted in political ideology.

The Texas law has a specific exemption for companies under 50 million users. So it wouldnt cover conservative sites like Parler, he said. The Florida law had exemptions for Disney and for Universal that were then taken out once Disney and Universal started criticizing Florida [political leaders]. A big part of the underlying motivation for these laws was the political concern that conservatives thought that their voices were being removed from the site and the marketplace of ideas.

View original post here:

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms - Texas Standard

Let’s set the record straight on Montana’s Medicaid Daily Montanan – Daily Montanan

Posted on by

Plain and simple people get sick.

Right now, more than 250,000 predominantly low-income Montanans get help with healthcare through Medicaida state-federal partnership. Montana has overall and primary responsibility, while the Feds pick up most of the costs, averaging 80% (of total Medicaid spending). In 2022, the Federal government provided $1.8 billion to cover health care for Medicaid-eligible Montanans who live in every county across the Big Sky. Remarkably, two-thirds of Medicaid recipients live in our rural communities.

So, what is Medicaid, and who does it serve?

Not only does Medicaid fund health care services for our lower-income neighbors including children, families, and pregnant moms, but it also covers those with serious disabilities. By reducing the number of uninsured, Medicaid has also helped keep healthcare insurance costs down for everyone while pumping money into Montanas economy. The Medicaid reimbursements for rural and urban healthcare providers keep the doors of healthcare facilities open and help retain healthcare providers. Small businesses also benefit from Medicaid, as they often cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employeeswhether they work full or part-time.

Medicaid Expansion is a critical program for our Native American Montanans. The Indian Health Service continues to be woefully underfunded; a recent series of newspaper articles illustrates the healthcare challenges facing those who reside on reservations. Medicaid has greatly boosted services to Native Americans, allowing them to access a broader range of healthcare providers. The federal government reimburses the care provided to Native Americans on Medicaid at 100%.

Despite the benefits of Medicaid, we now have more than 120,000 Montanans18% of kiddoswho have lost Medicaid coverage due to DPHHSs procedural snafus. The end of the COVID public health emergency necessitated each state to review eligibility for Medicaid. Thats reasonable; however, Montana launched a process that is difficult, confusing, and sometimes impossible for people to reapply or maintain eligibility. The result: Almost one-in-every-three Medicaid recipients has been denied not because of eligibility, but 64% for technical or procedural issues. Montana now has among the highest and worst records in the nation for terminating health insurance for children. Disgraceful.

Reports indicate 4- to 6-hour telephone waits and multiple tries for Medicaid recipients to provide documentation to keep their insurance. Unbelievably, some folks did not know their coverage had been terminated until they arrived at the doctors office. What happened to Gov. Greg Gianfortes political promises of less bureaucracy?

Alarmed by Montanas record, federal healthcare authorities have twice requested changes to this processechoing a chorus of local healthcare providers (such as the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians) asking for a 30-day pause to stop children from losing their coverage. Meanwhile, state officials seem hell-bent on purging the Medicaid rolls, to the detriment of peoples health as well as our economy.

Is this purging a signal of things to come? Medicaid Expansion must be renewedduring the 2025 legislative session. Montanas Medicaid program is not plagued by fraud and abuseexactly the opposite. Its bewildering to think about the consequences of this purge. Ironically there is an ongoing major mental health reform initiative, aimed at expanding access. Yet, many of those losing Medicaid need mental or behavioral health servicesbut will no longer be eligible.

The governor is taking Montana backward, not forward Is this the Montana we want for our children, those less fortunate, or folks in rural areas?

See original here:

Let's set the record straight on Montana's Medicaid Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan