Ketanji Brown Jackson Concerned First Amendment ‘Hamstringin

[sunny225]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/18/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-hamstringing-the-government/

Ketanji Brown Jackson Concerned First Amendment ‘Hamstringing the Government

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday that she was concerned that the First Amendment was “hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.”



Jackson addressed Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, whose state joined Missouri in suing the federal government over its attempts to censor speech on social media platforms during the coronavirus pandemic, ostensibly for public health reasons.



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.
more at link

[farmrbrown]

I prefer the term "hog tie" and yes, Ms. Jackson, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do - Hog Tie the gov't.

[sunny225]

boriquagato.substack.com/p/ketanji-brown-and-the-template-of

ketanji brown and the template of doom

trading literally everything for "a little safety"



a lot of people seem disappointed by the outing that murthy v missouri (formerly missouri v biden) had at SCOTUS yesterday, and perhaps for good reason. this is an incredibly important case, perhaps the most important first amendment case our our generation. at issue is whether the government can bully, prod, or require that social media ban or censor speech. do they get to decide what can and cannot be spoken in the modern day public square? because this is obviously their intent and they have been up to their necks in it for years.

i asked a gatopal™ close to the case about this and he said he was disappointed in the way our side did not make a sufficient case that the government got everything wrong all covid and used censorship to hide it.



as one of the ones who was decatformed for being right, this really hits home for me. so many of us were just following data, presenting results, checking one another, and allowing ourselves to be checked, but none of it mattered. only the answers mattered and if the answer was not to federal liking, defenestration from casa del bluebird followed.



and it was not just covid. it was election lies, laptops, woke and riots and DEI. you name it, phalanxes of censors decided if you could say it. when elon fired 70% of twitter, he was not firing anyone useful. he was firing the censorship industrial complex.



but the a greater problem here is not “the censors were wrong” or “the censors lied” it’s that anyone granted them this frame to begin with where “maybe it would be OK so long as it served a good purpose.”



because it isn’t OK.



ever.



this is a binary. allow your speech right to be taken for any reason and you do not have a right anymore, you have a negotiation about a privilege and it’s one you’ll always lose in the long run.



emergency power begets emergencies like jam begets ants.



it’s ALWAYS the same.



and this matters because several of the supreme court justices do not believe in rights. at all. they literally see the first amendment as “hamstringing the government.” it’s not enough for the government to speak, the government has a obligation to take steps to protect us and if it cannot impose a prohibition of speech, then how is it supposed to do that?



listen to it yourself. it’s chilling.



this woman sees your rights as a problem to be circumvented. for your own good.



worse, she thinks it’s “duty” to do this.



more at link

[Ozarks Tom]

Amazing, isn't it? That a "judge" doesn't plainly see that the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is forbidden to do? I have to wonder if she also thinks if a religion is harmful to society it can be banned.

Those pesky prohibitions so clearly listed are the only things standing in their way of installing their grand dream utopia.

[themotherhen]

That woman is dumber than a stump.

[sunny225]

Mar 21, 2024 19:38:07 GMT themotherhen said:

That woman is dumber than a stump.

And pure-D ugly to boot!

[Txsteader]

Funny, that for over 200 years, everyone understood the meaning of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Apparently today's liberals think that we've been wrong all this time and that, amazingly, they alone know what the founders really meant - even though they wrote it and the states ratified it.

To say that she and other liberals are disillusioned is putting it nicely.

[farmrbrown]

Mar 22, 2024 10:31:10 GMT Txsteader said:

Funny, that for over 200 years, everyone understood the meaning of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Apparently today's liberals think that we've been wrong all this time and that, amazingly, they alone know what the founders really meant - even though they wrote it and the states ratified it.

To say that she and other liberals are disillusioned is putting it nicely.

Ehhhh....it's more common than people think and isn't only an affliction of the 'liberals'.

* Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it state does it state that a felony conviction (or even certain misdemeanors) is an exception to that guaranteed right. 
* Not until the 1960's was the 6th amendment's right to legal counsel finally enforced in all states by the SCOTUS.
* Today as well as in the past, the 4th amendment's right to keep the gov't's nose out of your private business UNLESS a bonafide search warrant can be obtained, is violated on a daily basis.

All 3 of these were conducted by those who thought those rights were too "liberal".

[Ozarks Tom]

So many people are under the delusion that the government is interested in freedom of the populace, which couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, government is primarily interested in furthering its own power and reach into our lives, and feathering their own nests to the detriment of everyone else.

Case in point: This most recent omnibus budget that just passed in the middle of the night, on such a hurried manner will add to inflation and hurt every citizen. Well, every citizen except the recipients of the pork stuffed into it, with the usual benefits for the cretins who injected them. They can brag to their constituents, and of course big donors, that they've done something "for" them, when in reality they've done something "to" them.

When we hear people say the government is "out of control", don't believe them for an instant. Oh, there's plenty of control, it's just not ours.

[sunny225]

Ozarks Tom, you have pegged the gooberment just right. They are no longer, if they ever were, working for the people. It's all about money and power.