“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga on Monday during Aguiñaga’s presentation defending citizens in the state of Louisiana and Missouri.
Louisiana and Missouri attorneys [and solicitor] general challenged the federal government over how it censored conservative speech and coordinated with social media companies to silence critics during the 2020 election and the Covid-19 pandemic.
The states won in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Western Louisiana last fall. Appeals Court Judge Terry Doughty, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, said the government-directed censorship witnessed was “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history” in his 155-page memorandum ruling issued last year.
The appeals court ruled that the Biden Administration had appeared to violate the First Amendment when it worked to persuade social media platforms to remove what the government said was misleading or false content about the Covid-19 pandemic.
The lower court judges wrote that the White House and the Office of the Surgeon General had coerced “platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences” and “significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes.”
The Biden Administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court calendared the case for this session.
During Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, aka Biden v. Missouri, Justice Brown Jackson had concerns about limiting the government’s role in censoring Americans through its coordination with social media companies like X/Twitter and Meta/Facebook/Instagram because “some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country” in ways that are more draconian than just posting the government’s point of view.
“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 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.”
Aguiñaga answered that he was not asking for a restriction on interactions between the government and social media companies, but he said there are constitutional limits to what the government can do in the way of bullying or threatening.
“Our position is not that the government can 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. “But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment and I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.”
Despite the abuse of power by the Biden Administration, even more-conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a concern about how a ban on the cooperation of social media companies with government requests could be too sweeping. It may be the case gets remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of sideboards on the government, to keep it from being a director of online content and a censor of Americans’ points of view.
Brown Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2022; she is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court. Her confirmation vote in the Senate was 53-47, with three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in voting yes. Those Republicans were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitt Romney of Utah.
I DO NOT take
censorship lightly!!! I also don’t take advice on what I can or cannot say from an elitist leftist judge! So, crawl back under the rock you came out from under.
Instead of suppressing speech, even if the hypothetical concerns expressed by Justice Jackson are at issue, I think the government should provide speech to warn or persuade against the notion or idea. Social media (aka the public forum) is an ongoing dialogue that would benefit from open discussion, especially on current topics. I would welcome the government’s perspective and supporting arguments, but think all discussion should be done in full public view without censorship.
And this mental giant is on SCOTUS.
Another in the 10,012 reasons to boot Grandpa Bloodstains.
It is more than abundantly obvious that non-biologist Justice Brown Jackson was nothing more than a supremely unqualified DEI hire for the Supreme Court. Her presence there is a permanent embarrassment and shame on that institution. In a rational world, she would be working, if at all, at the DMV.
Hey!
Working at the DMV is a difficult job and frankly I don’t think in a rational world Kentanji would be cut out for government service. She would do okay in the private sector asking: “Do you want fries with that?”
All joking aside, it is blatantly clear that she abuses the law to serve and advance her personal ideology of big government tyranny.
George Orwell would just say: “See I told you so!”
Why would you take a shot at the DMV?
Do you own a vehicle? If yes, it’s the DMV employee that are responsible for making sure your ownership is recorded correctly; often times your 2nd largest purchase (behind your house).
Do you have a Driver’s License or State ID card? Is your full name spelled correctly? Do you show it when asked for ID at a bank, airport or other?
Did you register to vote at the DMV?
Did you agree to sign up to the often life-saving Organ & Tissue Donor Registry?
I’m ok with you taking a shot at Justice KJT; perhaps the least qualified justice in the history of the SCotUS, but please knock off suggesting DMV staff aren’t some of the BEST the state has.
Yeah, I’m biased. They were my coworkers from 2003-2007 and I couldn’t have been more proud of them
Damned inconvenient the Constitution gets in the way of the Imperial Federal Government.
How dare we actually use our rights?
And question the government? Heaven forbid.
Well spoken words by a judge appointed by a very angry old man with clenched fists.
At least we know where she stands and she has shown us her true colors.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,”
.
Yes.
Exactly.
.
That is exactly why the 1st Amendment exists. To hamstring attempts by the government to silence voices.
I think I know what she may have been trying to say. Giving her a tremendous benefit of doubt.
I think she was focusing on the very rare times when national security might be at risk and a temporary gag would be necessary to protect the operations in the field.
But, and it’s a big one, she gave a peek behind the curtain that she’d be open to a much more liberal (intended) interpretation of “national security” that would resemble political expediency.
Tremendous benefit of the doubt? Yeah… that is obvious.
The issue is not really whether the Government can censor, the issue is why and when can they censor. To stop the exposure of State secrets? Yep, I support that. To stop a political opponent from sharing their message? To support untested vaccines, or to suppress treatments that are shown effective? To promote an agenda? All of those are potential “national security” issues that the government can declare to support censorship.
.
The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution has been distorted to an extent it barely means what the framers of the great country meant it to mean. Any violation of the 1st without a clear demonstration of lawbreaking is unacceptable.
She is a threat to national security !
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Was she reading a different 1st Amendment to a different Constitution? Because it doesn’t seem like she’s familiar with ours.
She can’t even define what is a woman how do you expect her to be able to read and understand the Constitution?
A new “duty” for the government? Otherwise, negligence for breach of “duty” if the government doesn’t prosecute guilty, White conservative Christians who believe in free speech?
This is Joe Biden’s form of justice. The US Supreme Court is dumbing down……
Very fast.
Reminder to all:
The correct response to mis/disinformation is facts. Not censorship.
Just think about it the congress put her in the chair so look at their values and who they want.
Yes a big change is needed to restore this country’s basic values.
KBJ = putatively educated in the Law.
Advanced level wokeism. Racism 800.
PhD. in LGBTQ. Law school entry by race.
Biden appointee by race and gender only.
.
American law is now being run by incompetent idiots.
1/3 of the US Supreme Court fit the competency levels you speak of. In other words, 1/3 of the law is an ass.
It’s because she’s an equity appointment picked for her race and gender rather than her qualifications. Similar to each of the other women on the court including Barrett. At least Barrett isn’t borderline stupid like the other three. Anyone who thinks this particular set of justices will save us from the socialists/liberals is delusional.
Moderation limbo. Cookies please.
Poke a liberal, and totalitarian blood flows
NOT “liberal”, Chuck — radical leftist extremist!
There is literally nothing “liberal” about them.
Beat me to it!
She’s not a biologist so she can’t tell you what a woman is.
She’s not a judge so she can’t tell you what the Constitu……wait, what?
Affirmative Action proves again that geniuses are a product of inclusion and diversity. Equity demands that everyone start out with a 150 quotient. The end product is a reduction in value made by statements and conclusions at a later date by the AA participee. Room temperature and sometimes below freezing numbers are not uncommon.
Andy, you are forbidden to use the words Affirmative Action anymore. From here on it’s DEI
participation. Get your words corrected.
Yes. The government must be hamstrung from infringing on the First or any other amendment which it has no authority to do… yet will push the envelop when allowed to do so without interdiction from the courts. This Judge appears to have an enabler mindset. The police state as is will continue to influence election cycles and they have found influencing Social media to be a easy method in controlling conservative information which cannot be allowed to continue. This is an embarrassment for the SCOTUS as it apparently has a totalitarian enabler on the bench. Elections are vital to the health of our country so educate yourself to the evils afoot, share information and VOTE; don’t let others think for you. This government by the people requires participation.
Pffftt. She doesn’t even know what a woman is.
So how will she react when the government tells her to sit down and shut up?
Racism and sexism.
Best Comment on this thread, way to go Tam!
Her 18th century black ancestors would sit up in their graves to hear a black woman today say that “some Americans need to be censored”. They lived through slavery. They lived through when they had no opinion when their daughter or son or mother or father was just sold from one plantation far away to another plantation. Or they had no right to speak up when they watched another slave being beaten, raped, or tortured. This black woman on the Supreme Court never experienced suffering beyond maybe just a feel petty school and work bullies or gossips.
Yeah, now let’s get back to banning all those books in our libraries!
Can you impeach a judge for such a statement?
No. As an American citizen she has the right to be stupid and give voice to it.
Ironic since she is arguing a position which would have punished her for what she said.
Oath to secure and defend the rights of we the people was signed as a prerequisite to getting a paycheck from the public trust funds. Judges must uphold the foundational law of the nation’s creation not rewrite it.
I had no idea that such advancements have been made in artificial non-intelligence.
Even the Romas ie Pilot knew better than to hush Jesus. They were fearful of being over ran. It was the rich and powerful jews that wanted him silenced for fear of loosing said power. They got their way, but not without a great cost.
She would.
Comments are closed.