Posted on 03/18/2024 1:09:29 PM PDT by bitt
This afternoon, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted about today’s US Supreme Court case (Murthy v. Missouri) that involves several plaintiffs, including The Gateway Pundit, who have been harmed by censorship by the government and big tech. In his tweet, Senator Rand Paul wrote:
Today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach. The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.
Happening NOW: Murthy v. Missouri—SCOTUS hears arguments on US govt collusion with social media platforms to censor online speech.
A US judge has called this case “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Alito: “When I see the White House and… pic.twitter.com/5lp6wtWb2j
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
Joe Biden’s latest addition to the US Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, had a different take on the significance of the free speech case. Some might say that Justice Ketanji Brown, during oral arguments, dismissed the First Amendment as a roadblock for the government and big tech in their efforts to collude against Americans to censor their free speech.
In stark contrast, US Justice Alito argued that the US government and big tech should not be colluding to censor the speech simply because they don’t agree with it.
Justice Alito to the defense lawyer: “When I see the White House and Federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the Federal government should be partners… regular meetings, constant pestering… Wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to print media.”
Kentaji Brown Jackson grills LA solicitor general, says that because the govt can occasionally censor, they can also occasionally coerce:
KBJ: “Whether or not the government can do this… depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence.
There may be… pic.twitter.com/LmoL7bZDQY
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
And then, Kentaji-Brown Jackson dropped a stunning First Amendment bomb…
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do? she asked the Lousiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.
I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe. Don’t do it is not gonna get it done. So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government, encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights. pic.twitter.com/gWMCaHDG1W
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
...MORE
P
More here from “I don’t know what a woman is.”:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4225143/posts?page=4#4
that’s the whole purpose of the bill of rights.
Just in?? I don’t know much about the case, but it does not take a genius to know how that idiot will vote. Nor the other three liberals.
The woman is the poster child for the expression “elections have consequences”.
Does she really have so little understanding of what the Bill of Rights is about?!
Time to start and impeachment movement.
Yes, Justice Brown, the whole point of the First Amendment is a constraint AGAINST so called government approved speech. If the government is allowed to designate approved speech for one reason, justices will in time extend that to any reason the government chooses. In the end, by judicial fiat alone the SCOTUS wll have redcated out the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Not lack of understanding as lack of regard. I assure you, people like her will be the first to squeal if the tables were turned.
There’s that pesky constitution again...
You Nailed it.
“your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time.
I mean, what would you have the government do?”
Sit down, shut up and celebrate the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing free speech into our Constitution.
So the government can be stopped from uttering a word?
(Liberal mind) It a guideline, not hard and firm laws sillies.
But she’s not a biologist!
And yes, her comments are chilling.
If the SC sides with the government, then it's a no brainer that ALL websites that do not tow the government line will be attacked and closed down.
Well, considering that her opinion is a direct violation of the constitution that she has sworn to protect, our house judiciary committee should write out articles of impeachment against her and have her impeached for violating her oath.
Oh wait... That would mean having the House of Representatives do their their constitutional duties...
That ain’t gonna happen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.