Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government


The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case Murthy v. Biden early this summer


In a debate Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages, one justice raised eyebrows in her comments about the government’s relationship with the First Amendment.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices debated whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, and whether its outreach efforts with private companies amounted to permissible persuasion or encouragement versus illegal coercion or threats of retaliation.

"It's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates," Justice Samuel Alito said. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a different approach.

"Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.

"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," she said.



 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government


The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case Murthy v. Biden early this summer


In a debate Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages, one justice raised eyebrows in her comments about the government’s relationship with the First Amendment.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices debated whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, and whether its outreach efforts with private companies amounted to permissible persuasion or encouragement versus illegal coercion or threats of retaliation.

"It's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates," Justice Samuel Alito said. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a different approach.

"Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.

"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," she said.




That's the purpose of the constitution. It's not a list of things that the government can do, it's a list of things that to keep their hands off of.
 

GregV814

Well-Known Member
Look, that constellation thingy was written by old white men like a hunnert years ago Kyle... I want people to write stuff who look like me. I want economic justice. And, Maria Schriver, and Ahnolds wife wants more healthcare provided to women. David Throne likes Hispanic people and black women of color who are pregnant too!

I think I should turn the TV off.....


No, wait!!!!! Doctors dont want fat people to take OhOhOhzempic because we dont know whats in it or the long lasting side effects!!! There just isnt enough history, like with the CoVid poison.......... What??? Whats that???? Faducci Fauci??? Oh......
 

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government


The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case Murthy v. Biden early this summer


In a debate Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages, one justice raised eyebrows in her comments about the government’s relationship with the First Amendment.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices debated whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, and whether its outreach efforts with private companies amounted to permissible persuasion or encouragement versus illegal coercion or threats of retaliation.

"It's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates," Justice Samuel Alito said. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a different approach.

"Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.

"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," she said.



Harmful to who? Who decides what is harmful information, the people in power at that moment? And when they are voted out, can the new power players retract everything they said and declare anything they said to be harmful information? Where does that end without the first amendment saying nobody in government can force platforms to remove content based upon an undefined notion that it is harmful information?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I can't help but keep going back to Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Information. The only thing missing appears to have been the Government's strong arming the newspapers.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," she said.

"Unless I woke up this morning in COMMUNIST CHINA...."

Because there, "harmful information" is information that harms or criticizes or in any way puts the GOVERNMENT in a bad light --

Because their reasoning is that their society DEPENDS on public trust in the government - and therefore, criticism -is dangerous to the public.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Can we really expect an Affirmative Action ,DEI appointment to actually know why the Constitution was written?
C'mon , she is going to be around a long time making bad decisions. Get used to it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Because their reasoning is that their society DEPENDS on public trust in the government - and therefore, criticism -is dangerous to the public.

Which is the exact opposite of the whole purpose of the US Constitution. :lol:

Way to pick 'em, Biden.

But we have a whole generation of illiterates who are on board with abolishing the Constitution because they were never taught what it is and why it is. You'd think in the information age young people would be the most informed and educated in history, and yet they're dumber than a shithouse rat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Can we really expect an Affirmative Action ,DEI appointment to actually know why the Constitution was written?
C'mon , she is going to be around a long time making bad decisions. Get used to it.
She's NOT an idiot. Remember, she also challenged the dumb Colorado decision on the capriciousness of the law.
She IS however, quite partisan - and the whole "what is a woman" she saw as a partisan trap.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Which is the exact opposite of the whole purpose of the US Constitution. :lol:

Way to pick 'em, Biden.

But we have a whole generation of illiterates who are on board with abolishing the Constitution because they were never taught what it is and why it is. You'd think in the information age young people would be the most informed and educated in history, and yet they're dumber than a shithouse rat.
I probably ought to find out WHAT my daughter is learning in Governments class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it..
She is partisan , she is a racist, Perhaps she is not an idiot, but she is ignorant of the factors needed to do her job. Your own description of her as partisan admits she is in a position where she does not belong.

She is sitting in a job, rather a position, where partisanship and racism are not copasetic with the duties of her office.
Justice Thomas sits in the same position, but is intelligent and makes decisions without prejudice.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I can't see how a jurist ever publicly claims that a law can be broken, for emergencies.

Not part of the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

glhs837

Power with Control
"harmful" that's the problem. The folks deciding what is harmful or not. And that comes down to the basic line between liberals and conservatives. This notion that automatically the government knows best that you should follow blindly whatever they say. Man, these are not the liberals that we had in the '60s
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Because there, "harmful information" is information that harms or criticizes or in any way puts the GOVERNMENT in a bad light --



New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern once said, "We will continue to be your single source of truth," and that, "Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth."
 
  • Angry
Reactions: BOP
Top