AMNA NAWAZ: 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 4 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.

DR. BILL SHAUL, Democratic Voter: 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.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: 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.

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

I want to put to you, Solicitor General, if I can, what Jamil Jaffer, who's of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said in response to this ruling.

He said -- quote -- "It can't be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content moderation.

If that's what the court is saying here, it's a pretty radical proposition that isn't supported by case law."

What do you make of that argument?

LIZ MURRILL, Louisiana Solicitor General: You know, their ad pages of fact-finding by the judge in this case that would 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 platform.

This is about the government engaging in a widespread enterprise to censor people's speech that it disagreed with.

And so it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.

That ought to scare people.

AMNA NAWAZ: When it comes to content moderation, about dangerous, harmful content online, what do you believe should be the government's role in addressing that?

LIZ MURRILL: I think the First Amendment establishes where the government's lines are drawn when it comes to what the government can and cannot do.

And what's shocking about this case is the revelation through 20,000 pages of documents that we obtained in early -- the early proceedings in this case that demonstrated that the government not only did not know where to draw that line, but didn't care.

AMNA NAWAZ: So where do you draw that line, just to press further on that?

I know there are some exceptions in this ruling, right, where the judge did say the government can flag content about national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections.

Do you think they should just be limited to that in terms of the exceptions?

LIZ MURRILL: Well, I think that's protected - - those are -- that is speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.

And then there is speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

And the government can't do through the back door what it couldn't do through the front door, so it cannot partner with tech companies to censor people's speech that it disagrees with.

And that's what we discovered through -- and we're still in the early stages of this case.

There's probably a lot more documents to come.

But we have got 20,000 pages showing that, from the White House, through the FBI, through CISA, through HHS, through the CDC, that there was just a widespread problem where the government was -- had moved from -- from addressing speech that it disagreed with, which it can do, by the way -- it can say, we don't agree with what somebody said on Facebook.

They can absolutely do that.

But what they can't do is cross the line and tell those -- through a private pipeline, tell those companies under threat and coercion that they have to take speech down.

AMNA NAWAZ: Critics have said this is a very broad ruling, that it doesn't necessarily add 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, posts about the 2020 election being stolen, which are provably false, and we know fuel real-world violence?

Should the government be able to step in and flag those?

LIZ MURRILL: You know, we have established jurisprudence on what is protected speech and what's not.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you believe this is protected speech, spreading that 2020 election lie?

(CROSSTALK) LIZ MURRILL: I think that the government doesn't get to decide whether people go out on Facebook and say that or not.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, you... LIZ MURRILL: And when the government starts deciding what we can and can't say, we have a huge problem.

And that's what we saw in this case, that the government actually is quoted in these e-mails as saying that people shouldn't be able to decide their own facts.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: I just want to be clear here.

You're saying you do believe people should be able to spread misinformation about the 2020 election?

Is that what you're saying?

LIZ MURRILL: I'm saying the government doesn't get to decide what it thinks is misinformation.

AMNA NAWAZ: I have to ask you, because we have seen in studies and reports from the social media companies there has been a lot of an increase in terms of hate speech online in recent years, and many people have said they have been harassed increasingly online.

We know how easily and quickly harmful content can spread.

So what have you seen that leads you to believe these social media companies are capable of moderating that dangerous content themselves?

LIZ MURRILL: You know, if they're not capable of moderating content -- I mean, I think that the companies themselves have set some guidelines.

The companies, 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 different -- it is a more complicated problem.

If they're going to edit and they're going to censor people, then they are -- they are essentially not in compliance with Section 230.

Now they become editors.

So does government get to step in and actually forced them to censor speech that government couldn't otherwise censor on its own?

That's the real question in this case.

It's not about whether these companies are capable of censoring speech adequately on their own.

It's whether government under the First Amendment could do it, in compliance with the Constitution, and it can't.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Liz Murrill, Louisiana's solicitor general, joining us tonight.

Ms. Murrill, thank you so much for your time.

LIZ MURRILL: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: 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 thanks for joining us.

You have said previously you were surprised by the breadth and the lack of clarity in the ruling.

Tell me more about that.

What did you mean?

GENEVIEVE LAKIER, University of Chicago Law School: Well, I mean -- and this is a little bit of a response to the solicitor general's description of the facts -- what's so interesting, but also difficult about this case is that the plaintiffs have alleged a lot of things by a wide variety of government officials.

This is a very ambitious case that has a lot of different parts.

And they went through discovery, which means that they could get some e-mails and a lot of information that about what's actually happening.

What they found is lots of contact, communication between government officials and the platforms about misinformation and disinformation of various kinds, information -- speech that's dissuading people from taking vaccines, speech of that kind, speech that the government for, I think understandable reasons, thinks is harmful.

What they have not found is anything like an explicit threat by any government official against the platforms, for example, saying, if you don't take this down, we will do X, right, we will harm you in this way.

What they found is encouragement, pressure in the sense of weekly meetings, monthly meetings, e-mails asking about what the platforms have done about a particular kind of content.

Now, up until this point, when courts are faced with these kinds of facts, they have typically found that the First Amendment doesn't apply, that this isn't the kind of direct, explicit, serious threat from a government official to a private speech provider or a speech platform that violates the Constitution.

It's just not serious enough, severe enough.

And what's so remarkable and interesting about both the ruling and the injunction is that the court here disagrees.

It says, even though we haven't found explicit threats, even though this isn't the kind of coercion that in the past has been understood to violate the First Amendment, it's significant enough, it's repeated enough that we think that there's a likelihood that this is going to violate the First Amendment.

And on that 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's a very broad ruling.

AMNA NAWAZ: What does all this mean for how likely we are to see an appeal and how that unfolds?

GENEVIEVE LAKIER: Oh, I think it very, very likely that we are going to see an appeal, for two reasons.

One, the injunction is just really broad.

It's going to stop, I think, thousands and thousands of government employees from being able to speak to the platforms.

And then, second, it's just very unclear.

So, on the one hand, the injunction seems to say you have to change what you would be doing entirely, but it could be read another way to say, everything's fine, just keep going as is.

And so it's incredibly unclear what it actually means.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Professor, what does this mean, in the meantime, in terms of practical implications?

There are exceptions we saw carved out in the ruling in terms of when government agencies can reach out to those social media platforms.

Are they sufficient, do you think, to prevent the spread of harmful or dangerous information?

GENEVIEVE LAKIER: Well, I think the exceptions are part of the problem.

They are what in part makes the injunction so confusing and unclear.

I don't know.

My guess is that, right now, government officials who are affected by this injunction are just not going to want to speak, that the injunction is going to have -- an injunction that is in the name of freedom of speech is going to have this chilling effect on speech.

It's just going to be too unclear how -- what exactly it means.

And so I imagine most of the ordinary communication between the federal executive branch, administrative state and the platforms is going to cease at least until the until and unless the appeal.

But this is why I think there is going to be an appeal, and soon.

AMNA NAWAZ: I have just got less than a minute left.

But I have to ask you.

The case is largely based on this argument that conservative speech was being censored online.

You have looked at this.

I just want to ask what you make of that argument.

GENEVIEVE LAKIER: Well, I haven't personally done empirical research on this.

But all the studies that have been done have found that, if anything, the opposite is true, that the platforms are worried about being tarred with the brush being anti-conservative, and so, in many cases, will end up -- will be more lenient, perhaps, to conservative speech than to other speech.

That said, it may, in fact, be the case that the speakers who are more likely to violate the rules that have been set online are going to be conservative.

They are more likely to be violating what the platform considers to be its health information policies or its disinformation policies.

And so it might be the case that, even though there's no bias, it's still going to be that the rules are affecting more conservative or right-wing speakers than left-wing speakers.

And I think that reflects the fact that what we have here is, in some ways, a culture clash about what the rules for speech should be.

It may not be that the platforms are acting in bad faith.

They may often be applying the rules in a pretty uniform way.

But the rules themselves reflect a particular vision of what's the kind of speech that we are going to allow to circulate.

And there's disagreement about that.

And part of that disagreement, I think, is what is fueling this lawsuit.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Professor Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago Law School joining us tonight.

Professor, thank you for joining us.

GENEVIEVE LAKIER: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: 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.

TABATHA TAYLOR, Shreveport, Louisiana, Councilwoman: 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 NAWAZ: 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 5 in New York has won the Democratic nomination for a City Council seat in Central Harlem.

Yusef 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.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): 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 NAWAZ: U.N. experts based in 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 a Ukrainian airliner in 2020.

Iran shot down the plane after 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 today, stocks edged lower on news of slower growth and China's services industry.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost nearly 130 points to close at 34288.

The Nasdaq fell 25 points and the S&P 500 slipped eight.

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.

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 shootings, the Philadelphia mayor announced this afternoon that the city is suing to firearm parts manufacturers.

Joining me now is district attorney of Philadelphia Larry Krasner.

DA Krasner, welcome, and thanks for joining us.

I want to start with that lawsuit that the mayor just announced.

The city is suing two companies, Polymer 80 and JSD Supply.

What can you tell us about why the city is taking that move now?

LARRY KRASNER, Philadelphia District Attorney: Well, 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're talking about parts manufacturers, the parts being used for ghost guns.

Ghost guns are usually about 80 percent plastic, about 20 percent metal.

And they represent a giant loophole in both federal and state law.

Basically, what people do is, they buy two different sets of parts.

And then they go into basement, put them together.

The minute they're assembled in the basement, it's 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 this -- 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 there are guns that are not serialized, for which there are no records.

So people wanting to commit a mass shooting or commit a bank robbery or otherwise harm people and commit crimes are drawn to ghost guns.

AMNA NAWAZ: Are these two companies linked to this shooting in any way?

LARRY KRASNER: 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 his residence wearing a bulletproof vest.

He had an AR-15-style assault rifle, which is how he committed all of these killings and shootings.

And he also carried with him a ghost gun that he did not actually use during this incident before he was apprehended.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have been lamenting in the last couple of the lack of gun safety laws in Pennsylvania.

We know 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 the so-called preemption law, right, for Philadelphia and other municipalities to be able to do that.

Do you see that kind of reform happening at the state level?

LARRY KRASNER: Well, we can try.

I mean, the good news in Pennsylvania is that we have Democratic control, however sleight, of the House for the first time in 12 years, that is, the state House.

The Senate is still controlled by Republicans.

And so I think we're 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 would be a little hard to get them to take a more reasonable stand.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, what specific law do you think would have prevented this shooting from happening?

LARRY KRASNER: I think there are several that might, 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's 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 he was, at least in his residence, walking around with guns and a bulletproof vest, saying unusual things.

Let's put it that way.

So I think those are just a couple.

But just to speak more broadly, we have a country that has more guns than people.

It's absurd the level of violence and the level of people being armed that we have.

And the only answer the NRA has is, well, it's really dangerous out there.

Make save yourself safe.

How?

Buy another gun.

This is insanity.

AMNA NAWAZ: DA Krasner, in the absence of legislation, what more can be done?

What more could your office do?

I mean, I know, in the past, Republican lawmakers have claimed some of your policies -- they're citing declining conviction rates for gun possession crimes -- contributed to the rise in violent crime.

Do you think your office has been as tough as it can be on those gun possession cases?

And if you were tougher, would that help stem gun violence in Philadelphia?

LARRY KRASNER: You know, 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 that our policies have endangered people in Philadelphia.

The truth is, we're extremely good at the prosecution of violent crime 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.

One out of 100 people arrested for possession of a gun is going to turn up arrested as a shooter later, one out of 100.

That's different than shooters; 100 out of 100 shooters are shooters.

So while it's very important to go after illegal gun possession, and we have a bunch of hurdles, including illegal police searches due to certain policing policies and certain changes in the law, while that's important, it is actually more important to go after people who are killing people with guns, shooting people with guns.

That is what we said from the beginning.

The data shows we were right.

The Philadelphia Police Department'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 people who possess, some of whom might be shooters, but many of whom are not.

AMNA NAWAZ: DA Krasner, we report often on the cumulative toll that this gun violence can take in a community, so we're thinking about the residents of Philadelphia.

And we thank you for joining us tonight.

That is district attorney of Philadelphia Larry Krasner joining us.

LARRY KRASNER: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: After two days of intense combat, Palestinians today left 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 swathes of the camp.

Twelve 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.

Leila, welcome, and thanks 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 there told you?

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: I did.

And on the drive to the camp, there were Israeli Defense Forces snipers positioned along the road.

It was clear things were still very tense.

And driving on, 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, militants inside, and they laid those out.

And they were still trying to clear them to make sure it was safe.

These were civilians trying to clear the streets.

Once inside, really, there's huge destruction in the center of the camp.

You're walking along, and, suddenly, it changes from tarmac to just sand.

And you realize that's because the piles of rubble on the street aren't from buildings.

They are the entire road having been bulldozed up.

Now, these are Defense Forces say that was because they were looking for explosive devices.

People there say they feel it was just punitive, destroying their streets, because they'd come in and they couldn't find what they were looking for.

AMNA NAWAZ: Leila, we heard from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today speaking about that operation.

Here is just a part of what he had to say.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister: This is just the first step.

It's not the -- 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 fight the terrorists.

They shall have no safe haven.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Leila, what more do we know about what exactly the Israel Defense Forces were trying to achieve with this operation?

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Well, there was a question over why right now, why this attack on Jenin camp right now.

And there has been a huge increase in violence this year, more than 150 Palestinians dead in violence, 25 Israelis.

That's a big uptick.

And Prime Minister Netanyahu does need to appease the ultraright in his coalition government, who really want him to take strong action, and also the Israeli public, who feel they want to feel protected by their government.

So that's an argument why right now.

Now, originally, the IDF said going in they were looking for suspected shooters who had been trying to stage attacks against the Israeli public and then had gone and hidden Jenin camp.

Those people were not found.

They had been warned by people inside the camp that the operation was coming.

They were long gone.

But these 12 people who did die, difficult to tell.

The Israelis say they were militants.

Locals at the camp say they were civilians.

In a place where young men often say they feel they have to take up arms to protect their homes from constant military incursions by the Israeli military, difficult really to tell who they were, but certainly not the high-level people they were looking for.

Now, the IDF did put out a statement saying that they had found a huge cache of things while looking.

They'd found over 1,000 weapons.

They'd found guns.

They'd found explosive devices.

They had broken down operations rooms they believe were being used for terrorism.

So they are saying that it has been extremely successful, this raid.

It's worth bearing in mind that this was a huge military operation for a very small place with several thousand people living there.

They put in 1,000 elite troops on the ground.

They used 15 helicopter gunships against people in a tightly packed refugee camp, using airstrikes, using shelling, using drones.

So, really, to attack people in that sort of tightly compacted space, where there are lots of women and children, incredibly difficult to isolate exactly who you're attacking and exactly who you're trying to avoid.

Now, they feel that was successful.

There have been lots of criticisms from international organizations that it was far too much military use against so many civilians, as I say.

AMNA NAWAZ: Of course, all of this has raised concerns about escalating violence, even further retaliation maybe for this military operation, Leila.

The big question is, what happens now?

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Thus far, the IDF said this is the end of this particular operation.

And, today, as I said, people were focusing on trying to get back into their homes and rebuild them -- rebuild them.

But there is a huge amount of anger, and it's really simmering, and Palestinians now feeling they have no representation because they believe the Palestinian Authority, which does govern in these areas, just isn't 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're seeing even more settlements which are seen as internationally illegal being established in the area around Jenin.

This could lead to a lot more tensions.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is special correspondent Leila Molana-Allen joining us tonight from Jerusalem.

Leila, thank you.

Good to see you.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Most Americans feel the nation is more divided today than in the past, according to a recent YouGov 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 WOODRUFF: 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 so appreciate it.

Joining me were Republican Nancy Miranda, who co-chairs the state's chapter of Braver Angels.

NANCY MIRANDA, Republican Voter: What is going on in this country was so disconcerting to me that I was actually waking up at night thinking, oh, my gosh, what are we leaving our kids?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Democrat Dr. Bill Shaul, a retired family doctor and Braver Angels ambassador.

DR. BILL SHAUL, Democratic Voter: 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 WOODRUFF: Republican Khalid Namar, who works for Americans For Prosperity, a libertarian conservative group, and who hosts a radio talk show.

KHALID NAMAR, Republican Voter: 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 WOODRUFF: Democrat Leah Nichols, mother of a 4-year-old and frequent volunteer in local and state politics.

LEAH NICHOLS, Democratic Voter: 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 WOODRUFF: Republican Mark Nieberding, who works in I.T.

MARK NIEBERDING, Republican Voter: 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 WOODRUFF: And Democrat John Shi.

He moved here from California eight years ago for college and stayed.

JOHN SHI, Democratic Voter: Our polarization is a systemic problem at this point.

So, it is not caused by one individual and it will not be changed by one individual.

So, I think it requires a collective to fix that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: 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?

NANCY MIRANDA: I think the media has such a big part in dividing us, whether it is racially or politically or gender or sex.

DR. BILL SHAUL: 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.

KHALID NAMAR: 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.

There's this lack of ability to hear discourse from the other side.

LEAH NICHOLS: Now 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 that 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 WOODRUFF: Mark, thoughts?

MARK NIEBERDING: 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 WOODRUFF: 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.

How do you think -- are they reflecting the public?

Are they influencing the public?

How do you see that?

NANCY MIRANDA: 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's blue, I'm against it.

It is very infuriating.

JOHN SHI: That points to a bigger problem, I think, that exists in American politics today.

And that is our leaders not representing the constituency, at least in the majority sense.

It feels like, whether it's polarized voices shouting the loudest or special interests with funded campaigns to get their messages and opinions heard.

JUDY WOODRUFF: 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?

MARK NIEBERDING: I think it's probably a lack of humility is probably at the core.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean on the part of our leaders?

MARK NIEBERDING: Yes.

Yes.

I mean, we're here doing it.

If we're to be -- I have 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 who will think and respond to the people, as we are responding to each other.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, my question for each one of you is, how do you see the people you disagree with politically?

LEAH NICHOLS: I think it's really easy to look at the other side and be able to say, oh, 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.

KHALID NAMAR: 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 WOODRUFF: You just heard Khalid say that some of them are good people, but some of them aren't.

How do you see that?

DR. BILL SHAUL: 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 WOODRUFF: Khalid, do you think that could work?

Do you think, if you understood where they were coming from, you could get along with them?

KHALID NAMAR: I know -- I kind of where they are coming from.

But 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's racist, it's sexist, it's bigoted.

And a lot of people think 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.

LEAH NICHOLS: 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 better together, rather than just hating America.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One thing I wanted to ask you all for sure is whether this division has affected you in your personal lives, in your families.

How have you seen that?

John, what about you?

JOHN SHI: Yes, 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, I would say, quite conservative, and I'm quite liberal, so very different political views.

And he is in a high-risk group, so I thought he could -- should take the vaccine, and adamantly refused 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.

NANCY MIRANDA: 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 WOODRUFF: What about the rest of you?

MARK NIEBERDING: 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.

LEAH NICHOLS: 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?

And there are times where we change our minds, which is, I think, what this country needs to have more of.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, well, 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?

NANCY MIRANDA: 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.

LEAH NICHOLS: 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 WOODRUFF: Are you hopeful that we can get to a better place?

JOHN SHI: 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 that we have seen over the last decade or two and work towards a healthier democracy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you hopeful?

KHALID NAMAR: I would like to be, but there are things that are disturbing to me.

The underpinnings of our culture and society are come -- 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?

NANCY MIRANDA: I am hopeful.

I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if I wasn't hopeful.

It -- sometimes, it feels like a horribly uphill battle, but it's better than not doing it.

DR. BILL SHAUL: 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 WOODRUFF: 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.

LEAH NICHOLS: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK) MARK NIEBERDING: Thank you for having us.

AMNA NAWAZ: 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 YANG: 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 so, 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."

Mr. Medwed, what does this do for people like Mr. Jones in this case, people like him who want to have their convictions reviewed?

DANIEL MEDWED, Northeastern University: I think, as Justice Jackson said in her dissent, in a sense, this slams the door on people trying to raise claims of legal innocence, that the evidence can prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, after they have already filed one of their federal habeas petitions.

This relates to federal habeas corpus, which is one of the greatest, potentially greatest post-conviction remedies we have in our country.

But the Supreme Court has gradually whittled away at it as a tool for justice.

JOHN YANG: You mentioned Justice Jackson.

Another line in her dissent, she called tried 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?

DANIEL 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 v. Collins in which the Supreme Court said a claim of actual innocence by itself won't be recognized in one of these federal habeas corpus petitions.

And then, in 1996, Congress changed the law governing these federal habeas corpus procedures to make it very, very difficult to get into court.

There are strict statutes of limitations, restrictions on when you can file second or successive habeas petitions and other onerous procedural barriers.

So, I think this case, Jones v. Hendrix, is part of a multidecade train -- trend toward narrowing the federal habeas corpus remedy.

JOHN YANG: Is this something that the court is doing, or were the law is written to be hard for prisoners to get out of prison?

DANIEL MEDWED: So, if I were to allocate blame, I think it could go both to the court and the Congress, but, mainly, it lies at the feat of Congress.

JOHN YANG: They also in this decision -- actually, Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority decision, said that the Congress has chosen finality over error correction.

What do you think of that?

DANIEL MEDWED: Well, I think it's an interesting issue.

So, on the one hand, finality is often highlighted as a variable or as a factor in favor of curtailing post-conviction remedies.

The idea is that, at some point, litigation should be final, or else victims won't have closure, and the litigation system won't have the capacity to absorb new cases.

But, on the other hand, I think that finality is often a fallacy.

What good is finality if, in fact, 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 YANG: Talk about the people who are wrongly convicted, who have innocent -- are innocent and can prove their innocence.

I think we all have the image for movies or television that someone rushes into the courtroom and says, "This man is innocent," and he is released.

But why is it so hard to correct a wrongful conviction?

DANIEL MEDWED: A wonderful and important question.

So, a couple of thoughts.

First of all, there's a misimpression that biological evidence, scientific evidence, is available in all these cases, and if you can just find it and test it after your conviction, voila, the prison gates will open.

That's not true.

Biological evidence suitable, for instance, for DNA testing is estimated to be available in only 10 to 20 percent of criminal cases to begin with, and that assumes that it's retrieved at the crime scene and adequately stored.

Second, even with out scientific evidence, it's 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 found it, you have to overcome an array of procedural obstacles just to get into court.

JOHN YANG: Daniel Medwed from the Northeastern University School of Law, thank you very much.

DANIEL MEDWED: Thank you so much, John.

AMNA NAWAZ: 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 BARRON-LOPEZ: 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.

BOB MANN, Musician: It was kind of a little bit of a shock, just, like, traveling to work and sitting on I-35 in 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 tear-downs and this, that, and the other.

And it was definitely kind of one of the moments where I was just like, what did you do to my town?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: 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 capital 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 percent of people in the music business here were struggling to afford housing.

Between 2014 and 2022, there was a 12 percent 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?

BOB MANN: Yes, absolutely, definitely.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And have -- what do they tell you about the way it is?

BOB MANN: They're looking for houses out here.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Do you think you would ever move back?

BOB MANN: I'd have to win the lottery.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: 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 scene has helped attract another industry, tech.

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.

ERICA SHAMALY, Manager, Austin, Texas, 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 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 BARRON-LOPEZ: 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.

SCOTT STRICKLAND, Austin Music Commission: Since I have 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 everything else well worry about later.

And that's been one of the biggest travesties that we have 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 or whatever, 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 these -- in here somewhere, so that we can make some money?

And can we use diversity, equity and inclusion to make sure that artists of all genres are getting paid?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: 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?

SCOTT STRICKLAND: It is.

Yes, it has, absolutely.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And so do you think that its fair that artists are scrapping by?

SCOTT STRICKLAND: 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 BARRON-LOPEZ: When you were really struggling, did you ever think that you may need to leave Austin?

SCOTT STRICKLAND: No.

No.

This is my city.

I'm not going anywhere.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But for change to happen, Strickland says its 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.

BOB MANN: 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."

(LAUGHTER) BOB MANN: But I just want to Austin it just a little bit, just... LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Or the way the way Austin used to be.

BOB MANN: Yes.

Yes, I would love to see Elgin kind of be an Austin of the 1970s, kind of a real cultural melting pot.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That sparks inspiration for all these artists.

BOB MANN: Exactly, yes, yes, that makes people feel welcome.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: 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 NAWAZ: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Thank you for joining us.