pushing back against the city's social media amusement tax that Mayor Johnson has states.

31 million dollars worth of city revenue.

One, the measure requires social media companies to pay $0.50 a month for every active user.

Beyond the first 100,000 companies including X, Facebook and TikTok began paying the tax last month.

But net choice argues the tax violates tech companies right to free speech.

Joining us to discuss the lawsuit are 6 Ward Alderman William Hall who represents communities like Chatham, Auburn, Gresham and parts of Inglewood and on Zoom, Patrick, Head or neck choices.

Director of policy.

Welcome back.

Thanks to both for joining so much for having veteran over to you first.

As we mentioned, that choice is arguing that the mayor's tax violates the free speech rights of the social media companies that targets describe that part of net choices.

Lawsuit, please.

How so.

>> Yeah.

So there's already Supreme Court precedent about this governments can not target specific forms of media for special taxation.

You look to the Minneapolis Star Tribune case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court in the 1980's.

And they put in place a tax on So any for that used over had to pay an excise tax, very similar to the details here in this case.

Re arbitrary size threshold and a tax on specific form of media patently unconstitutional.

And then you have a federal law issue with the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which says essentially cannot discriminate against online service simply because it is an online service that you would any policy would apply to an online platform would also have to apply to its offline eclipse point.

That's not the case with this tax.

>> Alderman Hall, you supported Mayor Johnson's budget proposal.

We talked about it a good bit to show that was last fall.

You've repeatedly called for large corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.

But is there merit to the idea that a tax on social media companies for having more than 100,000 users is attacks on popular when it was first of all, start their way that you start the segment.

The company's are to have been painted.

So my question is if they are ready in agreement with the fact that essentially this is an investment in mental health.

They was outside group Messily inside business.

At the end of the day, we know that social media companies are dangerous to those who use them.

We just see right now in California, lawsuits filed victory.

One we see here in the Cook County right now we have lawsuits in which parents have filed against these companies for allowing the predators inside the chat rooms.

Again, social media.

We also saw social media qual companies question.

We failed and protecting life of a 14 year-old who was unfortunately killed because it was advertise on these platforms.

So this tax is to protect our children.

The sexes, protect families.

And so again, social media companies have already started pain.

And so they understand the need to invest into our mental health system, which, by the way, we've opened up more men to clinics in the first 3 years.

And those that were close in the last 4.

And so again, this is a commitment to mental health and wellness because the social media companies as much as the informative, they also can be dangerous.

Patrick, what about that?

The claim that the social media companies clearly agree because they are already paying.

Is it a matter of them pain now to avoid being in violation?

Has your organization fights this out on their behalf?

>> Yeah, that that is correct.

It is not to be in violation of the law until it is adjudicated.

I will remind the alderman that in the Supreme Court case, Minnesota Star Tribune, the Tribune was also paying that tax until was found unconstitutional.

And the state of Minnesota had issued them a refund.

So just because somebody is paying into a tax that's unconstitutional, does not.

Therefore, Ben, make it lawful.

>> So as the ultimate mention just today, a jury in La found Meta and YouTube are both liable for, quote, engineered addiction, leading to adverse mental health outcomes.

The jury awarded that 20 year-old plaintiff who started using Facebook and YouTube at a young age, 3 million dollars in damages.

Patrick, what is your reaction that ruling?

>> Yeah, I think these cases are complicated and they will be appealed be seen.

Several legal experts weigh in and say that there are some very questionable items in these cases and that will be have to be decided upon But I really worry about the floodgates of the trial bar going after speech platforms and ultimately the Internet becoming a much less dynamic and a much quieter place and people losing access to valuable services.

>> Alderman, what do you think the broader impact of that decision point again, for the second time, who is this guy?

We saw social media companies have already started paying attacks in which it's in use to pay for mental health clinics.

I don't understand why it is that we are attacking the city to form of frivolous lawsuit to stop companies from investing in what is needed at this current present time.

Social media companies again have just been found liable and the damage of human life.

And so again, essentially what we're saying as a city is pay your fair share and what is an investment into the wellness of those who use these devices?

This is not a tax again, that is not reachable.

It is not fair because it was so they would have felt the lawsuit.

We didn't get these lawsuits from matter.

When you get a lawsuit from Facebook when you get a lawsuit from TikTok and the others came from outside group.

trying to up on inside insight taxes that are used to help our citizens in Chicago.

Again, 5 minutes a clinic opened in again.

We look at war 3 on the verge of and amount of time that people use on their phones.

It has been proven that not only has it messed up meant to help.

It has also to increase the damage on People losing their site plans with these falls for the mount hours that they're doing.

Look, I'm 41 years old and I have to put limits on my social media just in case so that I don't use it too much.

And so damage that has been done.

Damage been proven matter of fact, with some primitive damages paid in California.

So it's no if ands or buts about is that this tax is the 3rd rail to protect Chicagoans in anyone that season as a necessity for they meant?

Well, I think there's also been some decision in this case or part of this case is about it is about how the feed works, right less about the content.

Those companies have been protected and held.

>> Not responsible.

Patrick and correct me if I'm wrong about that, the content that people are seeing on some of these platforms.

And to that point, then, you know, why should social media companies bear the cost of the mental health challenges as a result of what's on their platforms?

Additionally, when we know there's a lot that has to do with the mental health of our young people these days then the cigarette companies that for years they stole cigarettes were no warnings and people got canceled and then we have to families a lawsuit.

>> To recuperate the cost of damages, known to lives that were damaged by smoke, a cigarette.

It's no secret.

Even the CEO Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook said this has gotten out of control.

We never saw is dangerous for use.

As when I started using Facebook, I was in college.

It's a college student only at DePaul and that's how we communicated was a new way to innovate and essentially message on the door like you would in the dorms.

It has evolved to something that is dangerous.

It is dangerous to the point where not only are the user guides that are in place, but the use guys are not strong enough.

This tag station is not against freedom of speech.

This taxation is not against uses.

This taxation is to say that the investment needed to protect the warning signs that are not clearly a strong enough for those who are using these devices.

It those on social media platform.

Patrick, the 31 million dollars that the city has projected from this tax is earmarked.

As we've discussed for mental health services in Chicago.

>> Supporters say that social media contributes, as we've heard from the aldermen to mental health issues, particularly among young women, argue that the social media companies should help fund those services.

Do you think social media companies are doing enough to address the mental health challenges that are linked to this platform and or could they be doing more?

>> Also, services offer strong, comprehensive online protections as well as parental controls.

And there are parental controls available in every level of the Internet stack, whether with your Internet service provider on your device or on the platform.

But we're not seeing enough is the state and local governments contributing to online safety education.

We know that kids and families are going to be online for the rest of their lives and we ought to be educating people on how to use the services safely.

But discriminatory taxation that risk services being pulled out of certain districts and their for small businesses and other valuable services losing access to those things is not the right way to go.

>> Netchoice also argues that the social media newsman tax, it could increase costs for Chicago residents and businesses.

How so?

>> Yeah.

So we know a lot about corporate tax incidents in these taxes are generally passed onto the consumer and the consumer in this case that's actually paying for these services is small businesses that are advertising social media platforms have dramatically level the playing field for small businesses, be able to find customers and they can spend more money serving their customers and not as much money finding their customers.

And so when you have attacks like this, that may cause certain services to pull out of the city altogether, those small businesses end up suffering or they end up paying more for the advertising.

They need to be able to compete.

>> Alderman how?

Well, you know, Warren Buffett, certain things I learned before.

So my business at the number one way to advertise the steel word of mouth.

It comes to credibility.

It comes to stories that come to testimonies again.

We also must understand that modernity has an issue with equity.

Not everybody has access to cellphones number one in inner cities as well as communities.

So we look at how do you grow small business?

You grow small business by good product and by word of mouth testimonies is no different.

What we see with limbs, which is a James be award winner in the 6.

What word of mouth is it's the best barbecue in the city is no if ands or buts about you can cut off a cell phone.

Now you can cut all social media.

People still have mouse and they still want to tell the experiences of small businesses.

So again, the idea notion that small businesses will suffer because folks in on the Internet, that's not We have multi-million dollar small businesses.

Well before the Internet, we will have a long afternoon Internet.

But though the Internet is here, our taxes to say pay for them in 2 clinics, 5, which just opened up in the last 3 years.

And this mayor do your part in the investment of that in when he talks about the notion of what we can do more, the more is essentially making sure that they social media companies are now out of control with the damage that they're doing.

Patrick got under a minute left supporters say social media companies profit heavily from user data and comparing.

>> The tax to similar taxes or mining companies for extracting natural resources from the Earth.

example, what is your response to that argument?

Look at >> Brick and mortar businesses rely on data to if you have a a pharmacy card or a shopper's card at your local grocery store, that is data that is used to offer you a discount and services.

again, that gets sort of back to the idea of the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act signed by President Obama, son of Chicago that we are not going to discriminate against the business just because it is an online business.

And that is exactly what this tax does.

And I would really heavily pushed back on the notion that that small businesses would be just fine without the ability to access these online platforms.

Because what these online platforms, art is word of mouth.

And that been critically important.

I agree with the aldermen on that.

limiting these channels for for small businesses, again, to level the playing field against their larger competitors with access to broadcast is not fair.

>> All right.

That is where