 Finally, let's talk quickly. Again, we don't have a lot of time, so let's talk quickly about the two, I think, major Supreme Court cases that have been discussed in front of the justices over the last few days. I think this is going to be a very, very interesting session of the Supreme Court. I think there's some big cases that could either be ruled in a very positive way and enhance liberty and can be ruled in very bad ways and destabilize a lot of what we take for granted. You know, we've already talked about the CFPB case. I think that's going to be a super interesting case in terms of where the budget of the CFPB come from. I think we talked about that yesterday. Two other cases that are big. One is Gonzalez versus Google. This is a Section 230 case. Section 230 is part of the 1996, I think, telecommunications bill that basically allows social media companies or not just social media companies. It allows the New York Times. It allows everybody on the Internet to basically not be liable for material posted on their website by third parties, by other people. So, for example, the New York Times is liable for what it publishes in its articles, but it's not liable for the comments section. It's not liable for your comments that you put in the comments section under those. YouTube is not liable for the user-generated, like if I say something that is viewed as defamation, you can't say it's YouTube. You can sue me, but you can't sue YouTube for it. User-generated content that the producer, the creator of the content is liable, not the provider of the platform. Now, generally, I think this is eminently reasonable. Certainly it could have, Section 230 could probably be improved. I've talked about this in the past. But I believe at this point, nobody should touch it primarily because right now, if they touch it, they're going to make it worse. There's no way they're going to make it better. So they're going to make it worse. They're going to do something really, really bad. It's interesting that again with regards to Section 230, the crazy left and the crazy right agree. So the progressive left, one Section 230 gone, and the right, a lot of the right, once Section 230 gone. And they want to be able to sue YouTube, and they want to be able to sue Twitter, and they want to be able to sue Facebook. So this is going to be an important case. It's a case where a family of an American student who was killed in an ISIS attack in Paris in 2015 is suing Google, claiming that its algorithms violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by recommending ISIS propaganda to users. So by recommending ISIS propaganda to users, it increases the number of members in ISIS, which they would claim is partially responsible for the death of, I guess, their, I don't know if it's a son or a daughter, Nomi. Sounds like a girl's name, Gonzalez. But I think that's a real reach. There's also a case, by the way, that also is going after Twitter, where they're claiming Twitter is liable for ISIS acquitting efforts on its site. I find it bizarre that these platforms allow ISIS to put on this content. I don't think suing them is the right approach. I'm not sure why the reality is, I don't know why the U.S. government doesn't stop them. ISIS is an enemy. The enemy is using American websites to accrues and to incite violence. It just seems bizarre to me that it's being allowed to do that. Again, if we declared war on organizations like ISIS, I don't think it would be allowed, but we're afraid to declare war on any Islamist group. Anyway, so the court is going to discuss 230. It's not clear from the debate where they're leaning. I think ultimately they'll keep 230. I don't think they're quite ready to be in a position of doing away with it and without replacing it or changing it. I'm pretty sure Judge Thomas is going to rule, Clements Thomas will rule to abolish 230. Here, 230 is unconstitutional wrong. I don't know what the pretense will be to ruling, but I'm pretty sure Thomas in the past has said that social media companies need to be rained in and the way to rein them in is by getting rid of 230. So I think that is likely to happen. But I don't think the rest of the court will agree with him. So I expect, I don't know, hard to tell, but I expect a 6372 ruling in favor of keeping 230. But we'll see. It could be a nuanced argument that they make. The other case that was argued I think today in front of the Supreme Court was over Biden's executive order that basically provides debt relief to students. The Supreme Court, the Conservatives and the Supreme Court definitely seemed reluctant to say that this was okay. They had a number of issues. One is executive privilege and where does the executive branch have the authority to do this? Oh, is this a congressional matter? So it isn't a principal thing that you can't forgive debt. You can. It's just a question of who can do it. Can the President do it or does Congress have to do it? So it's more of a separation of powers issue. I think that's absolutely true if you're going to do something like this since the plan to provide debt for students was provided by Congress, it seems like Congress should be the one to put a law together that says, okay, you don't have to pay it back. It doesn't seem like a president could just sign it away and buy votes that way. There's also some questions about Biden's use of COVID emergency powers in order to do this and pretend that this had something to do with COVID. I think that the court seemed really skeptical about that and what the Secretary of Education knew, what relevance he had to COVID, why he was getting involved in COVID policy, and how student debt was related to COVID. So it was a lot of skepticism. Whether there's an emergency anymore, there clearly isn't. There's also a question of the fairness of the plan. I don't know under what section of the Constitution you could rule that the plan is unfair. Maybe there is. I hope there is. That would be great if clearly the plan does not comport to equal before the law, equality before the law. And then finally, on the flip side, arguing that this will be thrown out or that they will side with the Biden administration, there is a question of standing. To bring a lawsuit, you have to have standing. It has to be reason why you can sue the government for this. And here, red states of sued, so I think in this case it's in Nebraska, red states of sued. And it's not clear why state governments have a standing in the case, why it's relevant. Another lawsuit where there might be better standing is students who their debt will not be relieved or only partially relieved of suing on the basis that it's not fair, that they're being discriminated against. I mean, there's going to be a lot of other, I think, important cases here. I mean, we will see. I think this court is an interesting court. It's a court that's willing to overturn precedent. We've seen that with Rovers' weight, obviously, so that could be good and can be bad. But it makes it not boring, right? It makes it interesting and it makes it potentially incredibly influential for the future of law and business and culture in America. So I'm looking forward to monitoring the court and staying, you know, filling you guys in on the interesting cases and maybe bringing on some lawyers when we have really difficult cases. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. If you get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com. I go to Patreon, subscribe to our locals and just making an appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and, of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.