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 ...
The purpose of our Constitution is expressed in its Preamble.
Which boils down to restraining the government and freeing the people............
Same mentality as a ghetto stickup man.
She’s being paid to be stupid.
Stolen elections have consequences
Reining in. Maybe the author is using a buggy spell checker.
I think the constitution doesn’t mean what she thinks it means. 😆
Whoa boy
>>> that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information
Government bureaucrats cannot be allowed to judge what is or isn’t harmful.
See #67.
The government has social media accounts. Nothing prevents them from warning people to stay away from bridges.
It’s a misleading throwaway line at FR that demeans the purposes of our Constitution.
By her own logic, Justice Jackson should be silenced because what she proposes threatens human rights and the Constitution.
Not sure she understands that but she is trying to see how far the government should be able to go and the AG from Louisiana is not pushing back at all. He’s agreeing with her that the government has the right to suppress speech.
“Government bureaucrats cannot be allowed to judge what is or isn’t harmful.”
Exactly. The AG from Louisiana is not doing a good job making that point. He’s actually agreeing with the idiot KJT that the gov has a right in some cases, to suppress speech, like when kids are exposed to bad things.....crazy.
That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of our Socialist Utopia.
It actually is total as far as “opining” what’s true or false, good or bad.
The Constitution now says whatever five out of nine Supreme Court Justices want it to say. Of course, one problem with having a “flexible” Constitution is that at any time another five out of nine Supreme Court Justices may want it to say something different.
She’s a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. She’s too ignorant to know she’s ignorant.
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.