“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.”
So it seems as if limiting scientific debate to align with government propaganda is permissible using this logic.
If she were a scientist we would still be living in the stone age.
Jumanji...
Key point in the article. Jackson is using the "just the tip" argument horny teenage boys use in a heated makeout session in the car's back seat.
Now imagine that argument expanded to that WHO treaty-not-a-treaty monstrosity being considered. Everything will suddenly be an "emergency".
Its going to get to a point where people say the equivalent of Wyatt Earp in "Tombstone": "I don’t think I’ll let you arrest us today, Behan."
Indeed.
That's the idea, Mizz Justice Brown Jackson. The Constitution in general defines, and strictly limits, the powers of government. The White Men who wrote it were a lot smarter than you.
Really.
trl
The government, then, is always right, and can never be challenged. Wish I could say it’s been nice knowing the government.
Lord, have mercy on us!
All the women on the court seemed to favor the government during arguments I heard.
And that dang old Second Amendment is unfairly hamstring the government from turning us all into complete and abject slaves
She means like in the run up till an election. She should be impeached.
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.
KG(j)B says what ?
ssdd.
The kind of Justice the Dems most want.
Makes our sniveling, compromised, RINO Justices look like giants.
Scary.
Hugo Black is rolling over in his grave.
“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.
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.
If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to have Hank Johnson on the SCOTUS, wonder no more.
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).
Same mentality as a ghetto stickup man.
I think the constitution doesn’t mean what she thinks it means. 😆