amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff bennett is away. on the “newshour” tonight, a federal judge limits the biden administration's contact with social media companies over concerns about censorship and free speech. americans contend with the aftermath of fatal shootings at july fourth celebrations across the u.s. and as the 2024 presidential race heats up, a group of ohio voters works to bridge the widening partisan divide. >> we need to start to bridge personal bridges with each other by listening better, being more curious about what the stories are that are behind our positions. ♪

>> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. ♪ >> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf. the engine that connects us. >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of no contract plans and our u.s.-based customer service team can help find one that fits you. to learn more, visit consumercellular.tv.

>> the walton family foundation, working for solutions to protect water during climate change so people and nature can thrive together. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. amna: welcome to the "newshour." the questions swirling for the past few years about information -- and misinformation -- spread on social media about everything from covid vaccines to election security have made their way to the federal courts.

several republican state attorneys general argued the biden administration went too far to suppress conservative views online. and yesterday, a judge in louisiana agreed, issuing a sweeping and temporary ruling blocking government officials from communicating with social media companies about so-called protected speech. liz murrill is the solicitor general of louisiana. she led the republican states' legal team, and joins us now. i want to put to you, if i can, what jamil jaffer, who is of the ninth first amendment institute, said in response to the ruling. quote, it cannot be that the government violates the first amendment simply by engaging with deplatforms about their content moderation. if that is what the court is saying, it is a pretty radical proposition that is not supported by case law. what do you make of that argument? liz: there are 80 pages of fact-finding by the judge in

this case that explain why this is so much more than that. this is not just the government saying hey, we don't agree with something somebody said on facebook or on instagram or on some other form. this is about the government engaging in a widespread enterprise to censor speech it disagreed with. it does not matter what side of the aisle you are on, that should scare people. amna: when it comes to content moderation about dangerous and harmful content online, what do you believe should be the government's role in addressing that? liz: the first amendment establishes that line. what is shocking about this case is the revelation through 20,000 pages of documents we obtained in the early proceedings in this case that demonstrated that the government not only did not know where to draw that line but did not care. amna: so where did you draw that line, just to press further on that?

there are some exceptions in the ruling. the judge said the government can flag content about for an attempt to influence elections, threats. do you think they should just be limited to that? liz: that is speech that is not protected by the first amendment. and then there is speech that is protected by the first amendment. the government cannot do through the backdoor of what it could not do through the front door. it cannot partner with tech companies to censor people's speech it disagrees with. and that is what we discovered through and we are still in the early stages of this case. there are probably a lot more documents to come but we have 20,000 pages showing that from the white house to the fbi, hhs, the cdc, there was a widespread problem where the government had moved from addressing speech that it disagreed with -- which it can do, by the way. it can say we do not agree with

what somebody said on facebook. they can absolutely do that. but what they cannot do is cross the line and tell through a private pipeline, tell those companies under threat and coercion that they have to take speech down. amna: critics have said this is a very broad ruling that does not necessarily at a lot of clarity to where some of these lines are. so i want to ask you how you view some of these issues. we talked about national security threats. what about election misinformation? for example, post about the 2020 election being stolen, which are provably false and fueled real-world violence. should the government be able to stop those? liz: we have established jurisprudence -- amna: do you believe this is protected speech, spreading the 2020 election line? liz: the government does not get to say if people can say that are not. when the government starts deciding what we can and cannot say, we have a huge problem.

that is what we saw in this case, that the government is quoted in these emails -- saying that people should not be able to decide their own facts. amna: i want to be clear here, you are saying you believe people should be able to spread misinformation about the 2020 election? liz: the government does not get to decide what it thinks is misinformation. amna: we have seen in studies and reports from social media companies, there has been a big increase in terms of hate speech online in recent years. many people have said they have been harassed increasingly online. we know how easily and quickly harmful content and spread your so what have you seen that lead you to believe social media companies are capable of moderating that dangerous content themselves? liz: moderating content -- i think the companies themselves have set some guidelines. these platforms enjoy a kind of protection that newspapers and radio and television stations do not.

they are granted immunity under section 230. so, i think that this is a more complicated problem. if they are going to edit and they are going to censor people, then they are essentially not in compliance with section 230. now they have become editors. so, does government get to step in and force them to censor speech that government could not otherwise censor on its own? that is the real question in this case. it is not about whether these companies are capable of censoring speech adequately on their own. it is whether government under the first amendment can do what in compliance -- can do it in compliance with the constitution, and it cannot. amna: that is liz murrill, louisiana solicitor general joining us tonight. for another perspective, i'm joined by genevieve lakier, a professor at the university of chicago law school, who studies

the intersection of free speech and constitutional law. professor, welcome and thank you for joining us. you have said previously you were surprised by the breath and the lack of clarity in the ruling. what did you mean? prof. lakier: this is a little bit of response to the solicitor general's dispute of the facts. what is so interesting and also difficult about the case is the plaintiffs have alleged a lot of things. a wide variety of government officials. this is a very ambitious case with a lot of different parts. they could get some emails and a lot of information about what is actually happening. what they found is a lot of communication between government officials and deplatforms about misinformation and disinformation of various kinds. speech dissuading people from taking vaccines, speech that the government, for understandable reasons, thinks is harmful. what they have not found is

anything like an explicit threat by any government official against deplatforms. for example, if you don't take this down, we will harm you in this way. what they found is encouragement, pressure in the sense of weekly meetings, monthly meetings, emails, asking about what the platforms have done about a particular kind of content. up until this point, courts have found the first amendment does not apply. this is not the kind of direct, explicit, serious threat from a government official to a private speech provider, a speech platform that violates the constitution. it is not severe enough. what's so remarkable and interesting about both the ruling and the injunction is that the court disagrees. it says even though we have not found explicit threats, even though this is not the kind of coercion and the past has not violated the first amendment, it's significant and repeated enough we think there is a likelihood that this will violate the first amendment. and on this basis, the

injunction now says executive branch officials, you cannot speak to the platforms, not just you cannot threaten them, but you cannot speak in any way to discourage the circulation of protected speech. and that is a very broad ruling. amna: what does this mean for how likely we are to see an appeal and how that unfolds? prof. lakier: it is very likely we are going to see an appeal. for two reasons. one, the injunction is just really brought. it will stop thousands and thousands of government employees from being able to speak to the platforms. and second, it is just very unclear. on the one hand of the injunction seems to say you have to change what you have been doing entirely, but it could be read another way to say everything is fine. so it's incredibly unclear. amna: what does this mean in the meantime in terms of practical implications? there are exceptions we saw carved out in terms of when government agencies can reach out to social media platforms. do you think they are sufficient to prevent the spread of harmful and dangerous information? prof. lakier: the exceptions are part of the problem.

they are in part what makes the injunction so confusing and unclear. i don't know. my guess is that right now, government officials affected by this injunction just not going to want to speak. that the injunction is going to have -- an injunction in the name of freedom of speech will have a chilling effect on speech. it will just be too unclear on what exactly it means. so i imagine most of the ordinary communication between the federal executive branch, administrative state, and deplatforms is going to cease, at least until the appeal. but i think that is why there will be an appeal. amna: i have to ask, the case is largely based on this argument that conservatives speech was being censored online. you have looked at this. i want to ask what you make of that argument. prof. lakier: i have not personally done research on this, but all the studies done have found, if anything, the opposite is true. being painted as an

anti-conservative brush, so they are being more lenient towards conservatives speech. but it may be the case the speakers were more likely to violate the rules that are set are going to be conservative. they are more likely to be violating policies, disinformation policies. so it might be the case that even though there is no bias, it's still going to be that the rules are affecting more conservative or right-wing speakers than left-wing speakers. that reflects the fact that what ouhae s here is a culture clash ch suld be. it might not be that the platforms are acting in bad faith. they may be applying the rules in a uniform way, but the rules reflect a particular vision of what is the kind of speech we are going to allow to circulate. and there is disagreement about that. part of the disagreement is what is fueling this lawsuit. amna: that is professor genevieve lakier of the university of chicago law school joining us tonight. professor, thank you for joining us. prof. lakier: thank you for

having me. ♪ amna: in the day's other headlines, mass shootings erupted in more u.s. cities overnight, amid celebrations for the fourth of july. a gunman in shreveport, louisiana killed at least three people and wounded 10 at a block party. today, local officials condemned the attack. >> what you have done is traumatized this community. you have traumatized us in a way that is unfathomable. you have hurt us in ways that we cannot echo into words. amna: elsewhere, a 14-year-old boy was killed and six people hurt in a shooting on maryland's eastern shore. nine others were wounded in a neighborhood shooting in washington, d.c. and in philadelphia today, a suspect was arraigned on murder charges in monday night's shooting that killed five people.

one of the so-called central park five in new york has won the democratic nomination for a city council seat in central harlem. yusuf salaam was convicted, imprisoned, and then exonerated in the rape and beating of a white jogger in central park in 1989. last week, salaam claimed victory on primary night, but he had to wait for officials to count absentee ballots before the race was called today. he is all but assured of winning the general election in november. in the war in ukraine, fears about the fate of a nuclear plant under russian control escalated today. each side claims the other plans to sabotage the zaporizhzhia nuclear site in southeastern ukraine. it's the largest in europe. the plant has already been damaged during months of shelling. but ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy warned that russia has now mined the roofs of reactor buildings. >> radiation is a threat to everyone in the world, and the nuclear power plant must be fully protected from any radiation incidents.

different countries have their own intelligence and other capabilities to know exactly what is going on and who's to blame. amna: u.n. experts based at zaporizhzhia reported no signs of explosives, but they said they'd need greater access to the plant to be certain. four countries went to the international court of justice today over the downing of an ai. ir shot wn thelane aer inra takeoff from tehran, killing all 176 people on board. the iranians said they mistook it for an american cruise missile. britain, canada, and sweden all had citizens on the plane. along with ukraine, they say tehran has refused to compensate the victims' families. the u.s. and iran have had a new confrontation. u.s. navy officials say iranian vessels tried to seize two oil tankers and fired on one of them just outside the persian gulf today. an american destroyer blocked both attempts near the strait of hormuz. the waterway is a vital route for the international oil trade. iran has seized at least five

commercial ships there in the past two years. and on wall street, stocks edged lower on news of slower growth in china's services industry. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 130 points to close at 34,288. the nasdaq fell 25 points. the s&p 500 slipped 8. still to come on the "newshour," the state of play in the west bank after israeli forces complete an anti-militant operation. how a supreme court decision limits convicted people's chance to appeal. the skyrocketing cost of living threatens the status of austin, texas as the live music capital of the world. >> this is the "pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. amna: we return now to the city of philadelphia, where a mass

shooting on the eve of july 4 left five people dead. the suspect, 40-year-old kimbrady carriker, was arraigned today on a host of charges, including five counts of first-degree murder. and in response to the shooting, the philadelphia mayor announced this afternoon that the city is suing two firearm parts manufacturers. joining me now is district attorney of philadelphia, larry krasner. welcome and thank you for joining us. i want to start with the lawsuit the mayor just announced. the city is suing polymer 80 and jst supply. what can you tell us about why the city is taking that move now? larry: the city has tried and will continue to try to go after gun manufacturers. that has been almost impossible. i think the opportunity here is because we are talking about parts manufacturers, the parts being used for ghost guns. ghost guns are usually about 80% plastic, 20% metal, and they represent a giant loophole in federal and state law. basically people buy two

different sets of parts and then they go in a basement and put them together. the minute they are assembled in the basement it is a crime, but we nevertheless have a world where you can get around all sorts of gun regulation. not that we have enough, we don't. but you can purchase these things and you can massively sell them out of your basement. their purpose of course is crime. these are not the best guns, although they work. but they are not serialized and they have no records. so people wanting to commit a mass shooting or bank robbery or otherwise harm people and commit crimes are drawn to ghost guns. amna: are these two companies linked to the shooting in anyway? larry: there was a ghost gun involved in this case. i don't know whether these particular companies were involved. but the killer in this case came out of this residence wearing a bulletproof vest, he had an ar-15 style assault rifle, which is how he committed all of these killings and shootings. he also carried with him a ghost

gun that he did not use before he was ever amended. amna: you have been lamenting the last couple of days the lack of gun safety laws in pennsylvania. the city of philadelphia has tried in the past to pass its own local gun safety laws and been thwarted by the state. it would take state legislators changing law for philadelphia and other municipalities to be able to do that. do you see that kind of reform happening at the state level? larry: we can try. the good news in pennsylvania is we have democratic control, however slight in the house for the first time in 12 years, the statehouse. the senate is still controlled by republicans. so i think we are making progress but it is going to be a challenge to get republicans whose identity seems to be so wrapped up in eliminating choice and making sure that every born child has a gun to tuck into their diaper. it will be hard for them to take a reasonable stand. amna: what specific law do you

think would have prevented this shooting? larry: serious background checks. this is an individual who had a conviction from a case that originated in 2003. i think a red flag law, because we know that there is a significant history of mental health, although we don't have all the details, that there was bizarre behavior in advance of this mass shooting. if there was a pathway for people to report it, they might have done so, as at least in his residence he was walking around with his guns and a bullet-proof vest saying unusual things, let's put it that way. those are just a couple. just to speak more broadly, we have a country with more guns than people. it is absurd the level of violence in the level of people being harmed that we have. the only answer the nra has is, well, it is really dangerous out there, make yourself safe by buying another gun. this is insanity. amna: in the absence of

legislation, what more can be done? what more could your office do? in the past republic and lawmakers have claimed some of your policies, they are citing -- they say contributed to the rise in violent crime. has your office been as tough as it can be in those gun possession cases? and if you were tougher, with that help stem gun violence? larry: the problem with our republican critics is we actually tell the truth and we have the information to back it up. they have yet to come forward with anything that shows our policies have endangered people in philadelphia. the truth is we are extremely good at the prosecution of violent crimes committed with guns. we just know that it is more important to go after shooters than to act like anyone who possesses a gun but failed to get a permit to carry it is equally dangerous. we did the numbers. the numbers look like this: 1 out of 100 people arrested for possession of a gun will turn up arrested as a shooter later.

1 out of 100. that's different than shooters. 100 out of 100 shooters are shooters. while it's very important to go after illegal gun position, and we have many hurdles like -- while that's important, it is more important to go after people who are killing people with guns and shooting people with guns. that is what we have said from the beginning and he data shows we are right. the philadelphia police's behavior in which they have come up with a new unit to investigate shootings shows that at some level they agree, that there is a difference between shooters and some who possess. some may be shooters, but many are not. amna: da krasner, we report often on the cumulative toll this gun violence can take on the community, so we are thinking of the residents in, and we thank you for joining us tonight. that is district attorney of philadelphia larry krasner joining us. larry: thank you.

♪ amna: after two days of intenset their homes to find the jenin refugee camp in the northern occupied west bank in shambles. israel's military operation, that it says targeted militants, laid waste to vast swaths of the camp. 12 palestinians were killed, including nine that militant groups claimed as their fighters. one israeli soldier was also killed. special correspondent leila molana-allen was there late today for us, and she joins me now from jerusalem. welcome and thank you for joining us. you went to that jenin refugee camp today. what can you tell us about the latest on the ground and what residents told you? leila: on the drive to the camp there were israeli defense forces additions along the road. it is clear things were still very tense. driving along you could see the burnt remnants of roadblocks

that had been made by protesters the last few days to try and block off the israeli defense forces from coming further into the camp. once we got there we were told we had to be very careful going in because they had been using improvised explosive devices and they were still trying to clear them to make sure it was safe. civilians were trying to clear the streets. once inside, there was huge destruction in the center of the camp. you are walking along and suddenly it changes from tarmac to sand, and you realize it is because the piles of rubble on the street are not from buildings, they are the entire road having been bulldozed up. the israeli defense forces say they were looking for explosive devices. the people there say it was just putative, destroying their streets because they came in and could not find what they were looking for. amna: we heard from prime minister benjamin netanyahu today speaking about the operation. here is just a part of what he had to say. >> this is just the first step. it is not by no means the last

action that we will take. we will do what we can, from the ground, from the air, with superb intelligence. we will do what we can to fight the terrorists. they shall have no safe haven. amna: so what more do we know about what exactly the israel defense forces were trying to achieve with this operation? leila: there was a question or why right now, and there has been a huge increase in violence this year. more than 150 palestinians dead in the violence, 25 israelis, that is above uptick. prime minister of nick -- prime minister denny who does have to appease -- that is an argument why right now. originally the idf said going and they were looking for suspected shooters who had been trying to stage attacks against the israeli public and had hidden. those people were not found. they had been warned that they

were coming and were longgone. the 12 people who did die, the israelis say they were militants, locals say they were civilians. in a place where young men often say they have to take up arms to protect their homes from constant military incursions by the israeli military, it is difficult to tell who they were, but certainly not the high-level people were looking for. the idf did say they had found a huge cache of things while looking. they had found guns, explosive devices, they had broken down operations. so they are saying that there has been extremely successful, this raid. this was a huge military operation for a very small place with several thousand people living there. they put in 1000 troops on the ground, they used 15 helicopter gunships, using airstrikes, shelling, drones. so really, to attack people in that sort of tightly compacted space where there are a lot of

women and children, incredibly difficult to isolate you are attacking and exactly who you are trying to avoid they feel that was successful. there has been a lot of criticism that it there was far too much military use against civilians. amna: all of this raises concerns about escalating violence, even further retaliation maybe for this military operation. the big question is what happens now? leila: thus far the idf said this is the end of this particular operation. today people were focusing on trying to get back into their homes and rebuild them. but there is a huge amount of anger and it is really simmering. palestinians now feel they have no representation because they believe the palestinian authority which governs these areas is not doing anything for them and is almost complicit in working with the israeli authorities. so moving forward, very difficult to say whether or not there will be more violence, particularly as we are seeing evenore settlements which are internationally illegal being

set up around jenin. this could lead to more tensions. amna: special correspondent leila molana-allen joining us tonight. leila, good to see you. leila: thank you. ♪ amna: most americans feel the nation is more divided today than any -- than in the past, according to a recent you-gov poll. to find out why, judy woodruff sat down with a group of republican and democratic voters in northeast ohio who are trying to bridge the partisan divide. it's her latest installment in the series, america at a crossroads. judy: on a beautiful spring sunday, when many clevelanders were cheering on runners at the city's annual marathon, we were inside the city's historic public library next door, talking to a half dozen local residents about america's divisions.

the group was brought together with the help of braver angels, one of hundreds of grassroots organizations that have sprung up in recent years to try to bridge the partisan divide. thank you, each one of you, for joining us for this conversation. we appreciate it. joining me were republican nancy miranda, who co-chairs the state's chapter of braver angels. >> what is going on in this country was so disconcerting to me. i was actually waking up at night thinking, oh my gosh, what are we leaving our kids? judy: democrat dr. bill shaul, a retired family doctor and braver angels ambassador. >> i think we need to start to bridge personal bridges with each other by listening better, being more curious about what the stories are that are behind our positions. judy: republican khalid namar, who works for americans for prosperity, a libertarian

conservative group, and who hosts a radio talk show. >> we have always had problems but the approach to those problems, there's fundamental differences in how people see the solutions to those problems. judy: democrat leah nichols, mother of a four-year-old and frequent volunteer in local and state politics. >> there is so much division in between the democrats and the republicans. and i think that it's really important to try to find a way forward together. judy: republican mark nieberding, who works in i.t. >> if you tell me who you voted for, i can very easily identify you and i can discount you as a person right away, which is antithetical to what this country should be. judy: and democrat john shi. he moved here from california eight years ago for college and stayed. >> polarization is a systemic problem at this point. it is not caused by one individual and not changed by one individual. i think it requires a collective

to fix that. judy: as part of my reporting project, trying to understand how the country seems to be so divided right now, i wanted to talk to a mix of voters here in ohio to understand how you see this divide and if you think there are ways to bridge it. and we have reason to think this is something you think is possible. so, nancy, you turned to braver angels because you just sensed things were getting more and more divided. how did you see that in your own life? >> i think the media has such a big part in dividing us, whether it is racially or politically or gender or sex. >> the media tends to foster the extremes by fueling a lot of the rhetoric that is at the extremes of both red and blue. and the rhetoric and the disrespect and the lack of civility that we sometimes see portrayed in the media, i think

has made this a lot worse. >> i do see the media as somewhat of an arsonist in many respects. however, unfortunately, they're a mirror also as to some of the climate that's out there. >> we have a 24 hour news cycle. and the news i see is probably different than the news nancy sees, which is probably different than the news that you see, because we're all have our own tailored algorithms when it comes down to social media. i think the news is just so different than it used to be. it is hard for us to even be on the same page sometimes. judy: mark, thoughts? >> are we really divided? i mean, i'm just not sure how much is being fed to us through the media. it's furthering confirmation bias, i think is the problem. judy: picking up on that, nancy, i mean, it's also the case that when you look at the congress of the united states or at state legislatures, they're pretty

divided right now. are they reflecting the public? are they influencing the public? how do you see that? >> they seem to be speaking to the fringes. i don't know if they're really listening to any of us sitting here. i don't know if anybody, any politician right now even looks at an issue objectively and says, hey, this is good for the american public. no, it's red, i'm against it, or it is blue, i'm against it. it is very infuriating. >> that points to a bigger problem, i think, that exists in american politics today. and that is, you know, our leaders not representing the constituency, at least in the majority sense. it feels like whether it's polarized voices, you know, shouting the loudest, or special interests with funded campaigns to get their messages and opinions heard. judy: so, mark, you just heard what john and nancy were saying about our political leaders.

how do you see that dynamic? are they playing a role in this division? >> i think it's probably a lack of humility is probably at the core. judy: you mean on the part of our leaders? >> yeah. yeah. i mean, we're here doing it. i've heard it said that the leaders we get are a reflection of the people. so maybe here we are starting to turn the tide and start to get some of the leaders whowill think and respond to the people as we are responding to each other. judy: so, my question for each one of you is, how do you see the people you disagree with politically? >> i think it's really easy to look at the other side and be able to say, oh, you know, maybe they just don't have the knowledge that i have or they don't know the things that i know. but in reality, we all have our own lived experiences that have brought us to where we are. and if we could listen to each other, maybe we'd actually be able to understand a little better. >> i'm going to probably sound a little different here.

i'll say it's a mix of things. some of them are bad. some of them are decent people in the middle. some of them are just misguided. we're being forced to try to accept a one size fits all for the entire country. and i think that's the problem. judy: you just heard khalid say that some of them are good people, but some of them aren't. how do you see that? >> if we understood how people shape their opinion, if we understood what their deeper values were that led to those positions, i think that requires a certain degree of curiosity, a certain degree of humility. and i think it will offset or mitigate some of the extremes that lead us to say those are bad people, or, i could never agree with anything that person says. judy: khalid, do you think that could work?

do you think if you understood where they were coming from, you could get along with them? >> i know where they are coming from. i think a lot of people have a view of this country that's based on everything that's negative and nothing more. it's ill founded, it's immoral, it'racist, sexist, it' bigoted, that this country needs to be completely revamped and upended. some of us don't. some of us know what needs to be fixed. but how do we fix it, and do we just totally dismantle all of our foundations? so i think there are some real issues here. how we approach those issues and fixing the country is the fundamental problem. >> as somebody who does see some of these systems as wanting to be dismantled, not entirely all of them, but some of them to an extent, i do feel like i see america as something that can be greater than it is right now. something that we can work forward to to make it better together rather than just hating america. judy: one thing i wanted to ask you all for sure is whether this division has affected you in your personal lives and your

families. how have you seen that? jon, what about you? >> yeah, it definitely has affected my personal life. when the covid vaccine started rolling out in early 2021, i was speaking to my father, who is quite conservative and quite liberal. so, very different political views, and he is in a high risk group. so i thought he should take the vaccine and adamantly refuse that, and to this day has not taken the vaccine. and so, having the conversation with him about the covid-19 vaccine was difficult. but around the same time i heard about braver angels and attended one of the workshops where they taught me some lessons on how to understand the other side and have a civil, respectful conversation. and that has led me to talk with him more about the vaccine and other things and has significantly improved our relationship. >> i almost lost a friend over

it. we would get into discussions, and not very civil discussions, i'll put it that way. and then we just decided, you know, is our friendship worth it? and we just put certain things off limits. we didn't talk about them at all. it wasn't risking losing a friend over politics. so we stopped talking about it. judy: what about the rest of you? >> i'm able to field someone else's opinion without necessarily being feeling personally attacked. i think people have gotten to the point where they think that their opinions is who they are. they're not. it's a piece. it's not who you are. >> unfortunately, i feel like it's affected so much of my relationships in my life. my family leans more to the right. even growing up, i am bisexual, and i would not express that until after i moved out away from my family, where i felt it was more safe to do so. i feel like i have a decent relationship with my family.

luckily we are all very question oriented. we ask questions. why do you think that? why do you feel that way? what made you come to that decision? there are times where we change our minds, which is, i think, what this country needs to have more of. judy: let's use that as a way to ask, to raise this question. what do you think it's going to take to make things better? to bring us to a place where we are able to talk about our differences. >> start individually. go talk to somebody who thinks differently than you. if you're focused on fox all the time and you can't break away, or msnbc, turn out the other station once in a while. research what you're listening in the media. find out what it's about. don't take what anybody says verbatim. >> i do think it's really important that kind of as they were saying, we put community in

front of politics and that we put our community first. i also in my small town have helped start a community garden. i think i have had the most amazing political discourse gardening with people from all different sides. and we don't come in and say, i'm republican or i'm democrat. we just come in as people who want a garden and better our community. judy: are you hopeful that we can get to a better place? >> i really think the answer to our polarization politically in this country is in our communities, and it is in the relationships that we have with one another, especially across lines of difference. i think with enough time we can start to reverse this trend of polarization we have seen over the last decade or two and work towards a better democracy. judy: are you hopeful? >> i would like to be, but there are things that are disturbing to me. the underpinnings of our culture and society, they're unraveling. so i would like to be hopeful, but i want those things addressed as opposed to us

having a civil debate, which is fine, but how do we live? >> i am hopeful. i wouldn't be doing what i'm doing if i wasn't hopeful. sometimes it feels like a horribly uphill battle, but it's better than not doing it. >> i feel more encouraged and hopeful by virtue of being involved in something like braver angels. for some reason, the energy that goes into that translates for me into a hopeful feeling about the future. judy: this has been such a wonderful conversation. thank you, each one of you, for sitting down and talking with us today. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for having us. ♪ amna: amid the flurry of supreme court rulings late last month, the justices also handed down a decision on what seemed to be a

rather technical question of law around federal habeas petitions, a fundamental right that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. but as john yang reports, the decision has big consequences for federal prisoners trying to challenge their convictions. john: amna, the case involved a man who was convicted in 2000 of having guns, despite being a felon, a violation of federal law. he was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison. but nearly two decades later, the supreme court changed the interpretation of the law used to convict him. under the new interpretation, he would be innocent. and on those grounds, he went to court to have his conviction thrown out. but in a 6-3 decision that fell along ideological lines, the court said he couldn't appeal, because he'd already challenged his conviction once before. daniel medwed is a professor at northeastern university school of law and the author of "barred: why the innocent can't get out of prison."

what does this do for people like mr. jones in this case, people like him who want to have their convictions reviewed? prof. medwed: in a sense, this slams the door on people trying to raise claims of legal innocence, that they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after they have filed a petition. this relates to federal habeas corpus which is one of the potentially greatest postconviction remedies we have in our country. but the supreme court has gradually whittled away that as a tool for justice. john: you mentioned justice jackson. another line in her dissent, she called trying to get a review, an appeal in the federal court, aimless and chaotic exercise in futility. artificial barriers, arbitrary dead ends, and traps for the unwary. how did we get here? prof. medwed: we got here over a series of twists and turns that were charted both by the supreme court and by congress. there was a 1993 case called

herrera versus collins in which the supreme court said a claim of actual innocence by itself won't be recognized in one of these habeas corpus petitions. in 1996, congress changed the law governing these habeas corpus procedures to make it very difficult to get into court. there are strict statutes of limitations, restrictions on when you can file second or successive visions and other owners procedural barriers. this case is part of a multi-decade trend towards narrowing the federal habeas corpus remedy. john: is this something the court is doing or worthy laws written to be hard for prisoners to get out of prison? prof. medwed: if i were to allocate claim i could go to court and congress but mainly it lies at the feet of congress. john: in this decision, clarence thomas he wrote the majority

decision, said congress had chosen finality over error correction. what do you think of that? prof. medwed: i think it is an interesting issue. on the one hand, finality is often highlighted as a variable, or as a factor in terms of curtailing postconviction remedies. the idea is that at some point litigation should be final, or else victims will not have capacity to abso trb new cases. but on the other hand, i think finality is often a fallacy. what good is finality if there is an underlying question of legal or factual innocence? that is a problem. i think accuracy is more important than finality. and sometimes that means we should take a closer look, maybe a second look at a meritorious claim. john: people who were wrongly convicted who are innocent and can prove their innocence, i think we all have the image from movies or television that someone rushes into a court and said this man is innocent and is

released. but why is it so hard to correct a wrongful conviction? prof. medwed: a wonderful and important question. a couple thoughts. first of all there is a misimpression that biological evidence, scientific evidence is available in all of these cases and if you could just find it intestate after your conviction, while, the prison gates will open. that is not true. biological evidence suitable for dna testing is estimated to be available in only 10% to 20% of criminal cases to begin with. and it assumes it is retrieved at the crime scene and adequately stored. second, even without scientific evidence, it is incredibly hard to reverse a conviction because after a conviction, the presumption of innocence disappears. a presumption of guilt takes hold. and all of the procedures are stacked in favor of reinforcing and supporting that finding of guilt. it is so hard not only to find new evidence, but once you have

found it, you have to overcome an array of procedural obstacles just to get into court. john: daniel medwed from the northeastern university school of law, thank you very much. prof. medwed: thank you so much, john. ♪ amna: for more than a decade, the austin area has been the fastest growing large metro region in the country. as laura barron lopez discovered on a recent trip, that explosion has brought sweeping changes to the texas capital, including to its renowned music scene. the story is part of our arts and culture series, canvas. ♪ laura: bob mann still considers austin his home. it's where he was born and raised, where he followed his sister into music, learning guitar at the age of 10, a mix of rock and the blues. mann played in bands through

high school, and in 2005, music took him to new york city for more than a decade. but when he came back to his hometown, it was nearly unrecognizable. >> it was kind of a little bit of a shock. just traveling to work and sitting on i-35 and traffic and cursing all the high rises that were being built everywhere and all the cranes. i was working at the hotel van zandt downtown austin. would consistently hear real estate folks and developers come in and just talking about buying up plots and teardowns and this, that, and the other. it was definitely kind of one of the moments where i was just like, what did you do to my town? laura: on top of that, mann couldn't afford to buy a house in austin. so he left, moving 40 minutes away to elgin, where he opened up this bar, which regularly hosts musicians from all around

the area, including his own band, blue jean queen. in leaving the city, mann is far from alone. austin is known as the live music capitol of the world. but the rising cost of living is driving out local musicians, and that puts music scenes like this one at risk. in february, sound music cities, a consulting firm that works with the music industry and local governments, released the results of its 2022 greater austin music census. it found almost 40% of people in the music business here were struggling to afford housing. between 2014 and 2022, there was a 12% drop in musicians living in central austin. and more than a third were considering leaving not just the city's core, but the entire region in the next three years. do you have friends that are local musicians that have stayed in austin? >> yeah, absolutely. definitely. laura: what do they tell you about the way it is? >> they're looking for houses out he.

laura: do you think you'd ever move back? >> i'd have to win the lottery. laura: austin is home to more than 250 live music venues. every year, it hosts internationally renowned festivals like south by southwest and austin city limits. estimates have shown the music industry generates well over a billion dollars a year for austin. but the city's flourishing music in recent years, tech giants like tesla, apple, and google have relocated or expanded in austin. erica shamaly heads the city's music and entertainment division. >> a lot of companies are drawn to austin because the quality of life is really great. they want their employees to have some fun things to do. and of course, our music industry and all of the experiences we have with our festivals and events is a great

location for tech workers or any kind of worker that is more of a high earner. and so as more people move in, there's just the catch-22 that the prices go up. and so the very artists that, you know, created the experience of a place to where people want to be there, they want to enjoy the culture, those are the very folks getting priced out as more people come in. laura: the city has tried to help, doling out millions of dollars in assistance for the music industry, especially those impacted by the pandemic. but musician scott strickland, who's lived in austin for a decade, says more can be done. he serves on the austin music commission, which advises the city council. he'd like to see support like free parking for musicians playing gigs. and, most importantly, he wants artists to have a voice in conversations about development. >> since i've been here, this city's really just turned into

this moneymaking thing. you know, how do we expand commercially in terms of real estate and just, you know, everything else we'll worry about later. that's been one of the biggest travesties that we've seen in my opinion, in this city. the death star has been built already. we can't stop it from happening. all we can do is say, hey, if we're going to build this high rise, if we're going to have this commercial space that's also residential, that's also a work from home space or whatever the case may be, can we put musicians in here somewhere so that we can, you know, make some money? and can we use diversity, equity and inclusion to make sure that artists of all genres are getting paid? laura: not long after releasing his first album last year, strickland himself faced eviction. he played at restaurants and other small gigs every week to make ends meet. you could say music built austin, right? >> it is. yeah, it has.

laura: and so, do you think that it's fair that artists are scrapping by? >> no, it's not. absolutely it's not. as musicians swing from vine to vine, what we're talking about is while they're like, swinging, let's give them opportunities while they're doing that. laura: when you were really struggling, did you ever think that you may need to leave austin? >> no. no. this is my city. i'm not going anywhere. laura: but for change to happen, strickland says it's important to hear from musicians who've left, people like bob mann, who wouldn't mind if some of austin's music culture made it to elgin, the small town where he's building a new home with his family. >> i would see stickers when i lived in austin of like, don't dallas my austin kind of vibes, and so i could see that being a thing here with don't austin my elgin. but i just want to austin it just a little bit. laura: or the way the way austin used to be. >> yeah.

i would love to see elgin kind of be an austin of, you know, the 1970's kind of, a real cultural melting pot. laura: that sparks inspiration for all these artists. >> yep. that makes people feel welcome. laura: and he hopes his lightnin' bar can play a role in that transformation. for the "pbs newshour," i'm laura barron lopez in austin. amna: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm amna nawaz. thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and friends of the "newshour." the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. funding for america at a

crossroads was provided by. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.]

introducing a technological achievement so advanced... it rivals the moon landing. wow! ok. rude. that's one small step for man.

one giant leap for mankind. - hello everyone and welcome to "amanpour and company." here's what's coming up. - the spread of human history is all about rises and falls, and some of those great cities in the past aren't here anymore today. - [christiane] lessons to be learned. i ask historian and author, peter frankopan, how the climate has shaped history throughout the millennia and what we can know from civilizations that collapsed because of environmental disasters, then... - look how those pixels are so beautiful. - art through activism, brick by brick. my conversation with chinese dissident ai weiwei at the unveiling of his new exhibition, including the lego version of monet's "water lilies," plus... - we can actually, for the first time, really study the surface of mars. - [christiane] walter isaacson asked nasa's new head of science, dr. nicola fox, how its upcoming missions can impact humanity's future,