Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Jackson Complains First Amendment Is ‘Hamstringing’ Feds’ Censorship Efforts
The Federalist ^ | MARCH 18, 2024 | JORDAN BOYD

Posted on 03/18/2024 11:55:44 AM PDT by packagingguy

Free speech is on trial at the Supreme Court, but Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson is no fan of the First Amendment. The Constitution, you see, limits the government. But leftists want unlimited government — which is why they hate the Constitution.

During Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly known as Biden v. Missouri, Jackson claimed to oppose any ruling in favor of Americans’ constitutional right to free speech if it limited the government’s ability to censor that speech via Big Tech.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

Jackson expressed skepticism at reigning in the federal government’s unconstitutional censorship pressure campaign because “some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country” that goes far beyond simply posting its own speech or engaging in constitutional means of securing citizens from violence.

“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson. “So can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that. Because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Aguiñaga clarified that he wasn’t arguing for a complete ban on all interaction between the government and social media companies, but for that relationship to stay within constitutional bounds.

(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; aguinaga; benjaminaguinaga; bidenvmissouri; bidenvsmissouri; censors; censorship; dissent; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; freedomofsprech; freespeech; jackson; kentanjibrownjackson; kentanjijackson; murthyvmissouri; murthyvsmissouri; scotus; siliconvalley; socialmedia; waronfreedomofspeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: NorthMountain

Proverbs 14:34 (NLT) Godliness makes a nation great,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.


41 posted on 03/18/2024 12:30:08 PM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

She means like in the run up till an election. She should be impeached.

42 posted on 03/18/2024 12:31:10 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
This is why attempts to mimic the US Constitution in third world countries always fail.

And that's why our country is failing.

43 posted on 03/18/2024 12:31:12 PM PDT by kiryandil (what Odessa doink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90
I wonder if it would be better had the first amendment been written like the second amendment:

The free exchange of ideas being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to publicly speak, publish, worship, associate, and petition the government for redress of grievances shall not be abridged.
-PJ
44 posted on 03/18/2024 12:31:45 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

That’s funny. I would have put it the other way around. The Fed is hampering the First Amendment. But then again I’m not a lawyer so I’m not qualified to comment. Better leave it to the experts.


45 posted on 03/18/2024 12:32:50 PM PDT by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbrfl

AP publishes and updates it’s “Approved Word Usage Guide” every year.


46 posted on 03/18/2024 12:34:55 PM PDT by blackdog ((Z28.310) Be careful what you say. Your refrigerator may be listening & reporting you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
What if there were burring cars on the bridge and someone's ability to tell others to jump off the bridge and into the river if you wanted to live was blocked.
Wouldn’t people then die.

See, if you make up stupid crap as a justification, there is always dummer crap to support it.

47 posted on 03/18/2024 12:35:16 PM PDT by midwest_hiker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

KG(j)B says what ?

ssdd.


48 posted on 03/18/2024 12:35:36 PM PDT by cuz1961 (USCGR Vet, John Adams Descendant , deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbrfl

(Guide for writers,authors submitting to AP)


49 posted on 03/18/2024 12:36:20 PM PDT by blackdog ((Z28.310) Be careful what you say. Your refrigerator may be listening & reporting you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

The kind of Justice the Dems most want.

Makes our sniveling, compromised, RINO Justices look like giants.

Scary.


50 posted on 03/18/2024 12:39:34 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free

Indeed.

The United States of Abortion will never be great.

The United Sodomites of America will never be great.

Government didn’t make America Great. We the People made America great.

God bless America???

Hah!

Repent, Americans! Be a nation that honors God, and that God can bless without violating His Nature.


51 posted on 03/18/2024 12:40:08 PM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

Hugo Black is rolling over in his grave.


52 posted on 03/18/2024 12:44:22 PM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson. “So can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that. Because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Let me see if I can clarify, Ms. Jackson. There’s political speech and then there’s speech made in the planning of or commission of a crime. “Biden is a disaster for America”, “Trump is a racist bigot”.... are examples of political speech. “When the motorcade passes by, I’ll give the signal. Then everyone, start blasting. “ is speech made in the planning of a crime. The former is protected. The latter isn’t. But then again, I’m not a lawyer so I’m not qualified to comment on such matters. Better leave it to the experts.


53 posted on 03/18/2024 12:47:17 PM PDT by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Almost like a ……. Wait for It ……. A BLOODBATH.


54 posted on 03/18/2024 12:50:24 PM PDT by Shady (The Force of Liberty must prevail for the sake of our Children and Grandchildren...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

This is a misunderstanding—voiced by a person who “DOESN’T know what a woman is.”


55 posted on 03/18/2024 12:52:32 PM PDT by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

Given the left’s open attacks on the First and Second Amendments, it is clear that they are rushing towards implementing fascism.

The treatment of Jan 6 protesters, the surveillance without warrants, the detentions without charges and the lop-sided prosecution of political opponents makes it clear we are in the end days of the Republic.


56 posted on 03/18/2024 12:56:05 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (This is the end of the Republic....because we could not keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trump Girl Kit Cat

One can only hope that her stunning ignorance will cause the others to see her remarks as the lighthouse atop the rocks of stupidity that they should always steer clear of.


57 posted on 03/18/2024 12:57:07 PM PDT by liberalh8ter ( Ephesians 6:10 - 18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

Someone should try to explain to her that it was the first the framers wrote down, the second was my right to keep and bear arms.


58 posted on 03/18/2024 12:58:05 PM PDT by kawhill (kawhill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy

If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to have Hank Johnson on the SCOTUS, wonder no more.


59 posted on 03/18/2024 12:58:56 PM PDT by liberalh8ter ( Ephesians 6:10 - 18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packagingguy
“I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”

Just wow. She apparently doesn't understand Supreme Court precedent on speech restrictions based upon content. The long-standing standard of review is not "heightened scrutiny," which basically means that the law or policy furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Within the context of free speech, heightened scrutiny is used to review laws and regulations that restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, but are otherwise content neutral, i.e., the size and location of billboards/signage, parade permits, and places where people can protest. The standard of review for content-based restrictions on free speech is "strict scrutiny," which means that the law or policy must advance a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.

Using Jackson's example, let's assume the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that "the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.” The question, then, is whether the government can provide the public with what it contends is accurate information, without restricting opposing views. Clearly it can, because government does this all the time through public service announcements, press releases, billboards and other forms of advertising, public education, and other forms of brainwashing, without restricting opposing views

Jackson is clearly a DEI showpiece who has no business sitting on the highest court or any other court (except perhaps a local traffic court).

60 posted on 03/18/2024 12:58:59 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson