“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.
>>> 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.
By her own logic, Justice Jackson should be silenced because what she proposes threatens human rights and the Constitution.
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.
She doesn’t even know what the hell she’s talking about she’s just a communist dope with no respect for the Constitution.
If I want to get on my soapbox during the worst pandemic ever to hit earth and scream “don’t take the medicine! “ that’s my God given right to Free Speech and your only way to counter me is to tell people I’m wrong.
Just like with every other single example anyone can think of.
In other words, The Constitution is antithetical to tyranny.
Hooda thunkit?
The Wright brothers would be in jail and Langley’s plane would still be burried in the banks of the river running through the swamp.
No government has ever concerned itself with censoring falsehoods.
The only thing any government has ever tried to censor is the truth.
Another Ruth Bader Ginsburg.. She’ll never make a proper ruling actually supporting the constitution..
Words from the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is.
“Justice Jackson:
“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.””
No doubt, she is referring to accurate information from the government like... the vaccines are safe and effective, the Antifa riots were mostly peaceful, white supremacy is the main threat to “our democracy”, Jan. 6 was a violent insurrection, and there was no election fraud/theft in 2020.
Yeah... we really want to ensure that that kind of government “information” continues unchallenged, Ketanji. And trust me when I say... We, the People have nothing but complete trust in anything you have to say on the matter, or in any ruling you will make on these matters. Honest.
Nobody’s hamstringing ANYBODY.
AS THE FOUNDERS DECIDED...THE ANSWER TO A REPORTED “FACT”, MUST BE ANSWERED BY “WORDS, PROVEN FACTS, EMPIRICAL DATA, TESTIMONY...THEN...MORE AND MORE W O R D S.
THAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND WHAT IS MEANT BY ...MORE SPEECH...
But, they don’t have time to do that...that takes WORK to present the TRUE fact...
AND THIS, GIRLS AND BOYS, IS WHAT THE DIMOCRAPS DO NOT DO WELL.
What they do well is keep repeating and accusing the opponent of what they are doing..
THEY ARE MASTERS AT DOING THAT.
But not with me and many others who have figured out the SCAM.
Dear Kunta Kinte Jackson, it's a feature, not a bug.