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

On 3/22/24 4:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:22:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 3/21/24 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
  wrote:
 

  On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
  wrote:
>

  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-amendme
  nt
  -is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
  b-
  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.

 

  "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.

 

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

>
  (1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
  only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
>
  (2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
  information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government
  censorship.
>
  The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
  freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
  you're saying is harmful".
>
  (3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
  there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
>
  "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
  disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency."  Ex
  parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
>

  "I'm interested in your view that the context does'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."

>
  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...

>
  No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of view
  loses:
>
  New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
  RULING: The New York Times' publishing of the national security
  information found in the Pentagon Papers is protected speech under the
  1st Amendment, even during time of war.
>
  Once again reinforcing that there is no 'emergency exception' to the
  requirements and restrictions the Constitution places on the government.
>
  (This is one of those landmark cases that you should have learned about
  in grade school, Effa. Certainly something a self-proclaimed amateur
  historian should-- but apparently doesn't-- know.)
>

  And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.

    Nowhere does the 1st Amendment limit press protection to only people who
  work for big legacy corporations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled
  that citizen media-- bloggers, YouTubers, individual citizens commenting
  on websites-- all fall under the 1st Amendment's press protections.
    You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?

>
Read the Espionage act fuckwad?

 Don't need to.

That's obvious. You just make it up... of course you don't need to read.
In fact, it's painfully obvious that you really couldn't, even if you wanted to.
--
"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