Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship

On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
 The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
 It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
 Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
 It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist ass.
 -------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-aee7be8cb179.amp.html
 Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
 In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be
skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in "the
most important time periods".
 "My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time
periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.
 "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 said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st 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 said his view was that the government should intervene in certain
situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
 "Our position is not that the government can't interact with the platforms
there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that
present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people,"
Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in
compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can give them
all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
 Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would
provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are
misinformative.
 "I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st 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."
 [Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and the
"officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of
carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]
 Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the
craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court Justice
say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening.
Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
 

The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that harmful information doesn't get to the public.

Jackson said a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.  “I’m interested in your view that the context doesn’t change the First Amendment principles,” she said. “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.”

Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see where it gets you.
Or try publishing National Defense secrets...
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0
Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0