Liste des Groupes |
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. GovernmentWTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
>
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."
>
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
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)
No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of view"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...
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.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.