Seriously, that’s the point of the 1st Amendment on all points. That’s the point of the first 10 amendments. That’s the point of the Constitution. It says what government may do, and restricts them on the rest. In comes diversity hire Ketanji Brown Jackson
KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights. pic.twitter.com/gWMCaHDG1W
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
It literally starts with “Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech… Congress passes laws. The Executive follows those laws. That’s the system. It doesn’t mean that the Exec can feel free to go rogue and coerce and limit lawful speech.
(Breitbart) Jackson had earlier presented a hypothetical situation in which social media platforms were allowing a dangerous trend to circulate in which children were encouraged to jump out of windows “at increasing elevations.” She asked whether government authorities could not “encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem.”
Aguiñaga suggested that the government could use the “bully pulpit” to push back against the content of the information, but could not call the social media platforms to encourage them, or coerce them, to take down the information.
Jackson objected, saying that it was not enough to say that the government could post its own speech. There were situations, she suggested, in which the government could “encourage or require this kind of censorship” necessary for public safety.
They can use their bully pulpit. Feel free. Coercing social media companies to remove posts that may or may not be wrong but go against Government Thought on things like, say, COVID, is expressly un-Constitutional.
ABC News “analysis” thinks the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the government
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to reject strict limits on government contact with social media companies amid claims that federal officials had engaged in a “broad pressure campaign” to censor certain viewpoints related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. (massive snip)
Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a hypothetical situation involving FBI calls to a social media platform urging it to take down posts that doxed elected officials, putting the individuals safety at risk. “That’s a problem?” she asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, representing the plaintiffs.
“I’m a purist on the First Amendment, so my answer would be yeah,” Anguinaga replied.
Except, really, that’s not Free Speech, that’s putting people in danger, and pretty much all the social media companies have rules against doxxing. And, that’s the extent of any “evidence” that the Court will reject strict limits. Highlighting quotes by leftist justices doesn’t count. At worst, it will be a 5-4 decision in favor of the plaintiffs, with long rulings explaining that government is very much limited by that pesky 1st Amendment. Meaning the Biden admin, because there really wasn’t an issue with the Trump admin doing this. Even the Obama admin was not an issue. This will tell future Democrat admins that censorship is not OK.
And Jackson needs to be booted from the Court, if she doesn’t understand the Constitution, if she has so misread it, if she’s simply blowing off the explicit writing on the paper.
Read: Moonbat Justice Jackson Upset 1st Amendment Could “Hamstring Government” »