During the COVID- 19 crisis, the federal government strong- military Big Tech companies into banning as “disinformation” Americans ‘ real experiences while efficiently mandating government propaganda, which itself turned out to be misinformation.
The Supreme Court is now determining whether that plan was in violation of the First Amendment.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made the suggestion during Monday’s dental claims that the First Amendment should not be used to “hamstring” the state in a crisis.
Jackson asked J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor standard of Louisiana, a somewhat presenting question about the topic.
According to Jackson, “my biggest problem is that your opinion has the First Amendment severely hampered the government during the most important times period.”
The Supreme Court justice presented an incredibly doubtful speculative that the majority of young Americans would get extremely insulting. She described a situation where young people took cellphone videos of their peers jumping out of windows, which went viral on social media ( preposterous ), Big Tech companies failed to take action on their own ( very unlikely ), and the government wanted to stop it.
She asked Aguiñaga,” What would you have the federal would? I’ve heard you say a few times that the government does publish its own statement, but in my fictional,’ Kids, this is not secure, do n’t would it,’ is not going to get it done”.
You seem to suggest that the government has a duty to protect the citizens of this country by encouraging or even putting pressure on platforms to remove hazardous data, Jackson said. ” I’m really worried about that because, from the government’s perspective, you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, and you’re saying the government ca n’t interact with the source of those problems.”
” I understand that instinct”, Aguiñaga replied. Our position is not that the government ca n’t use any of the platforms there, but that the way they do that must be in accordance with the First Amendment.
Jackson claimed that the First Amendment formally exists to enact laws to restrict the government’s ability to deal with a hypothetical issue, but it would be unfair to do so.
As Rep. Jim Jordan, R- Ohio, said in response to Jackson’s worry about the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government,” that’s what it’s supposed to do, for compassion ‘ sake”.
The article states:
Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice there, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the media, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A” crisis-exemption clause” that allows the government to violate free speech if the leader declares a national crisis is not included in the article. If it did, President Joe Biden may consider a climate crisis and force Big Tech to censor opposition to the environment alarming tale. He might declare a national emergency over the “epidemic” of violence against transgender people and put pressure on social media to outlaw any views on gender ideology.
Conservative speech on those topics is already censored on Big Tech platforms, but it could get worse.
Missouri v. Murthy presents an excellent illustration.
The plaintiffs in the case—Missouri and Louisiana, represented by state Attorneys General Andrew Bailey and Liz Murrill, respectively, doctors who spoke out , against the COVID- 19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty, Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft, and anti- lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co- Director Jill Hines—allege that the Biden administration” suppressed conservative- leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election, on COVID- 19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election, on the security of voting by mail, on the economy, and on Joe Biden himself.
On July 4, federal Judge Terry Doughty in the U. S. District Court for the , Western District of Louisiana , issued an injunction barring the Biden administration from pressuring Big Tech to censor Americans.
Doughty’s injunction named various federal agencies—including the , Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department—and officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean- Pierre.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed the extent of Doughty’s injunction, and the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuit’s order before taking up the case.
” The Twitter Files” revealed how the process worked: Federal agencies would have frequent meetings with Big Tech companies, warning about “misinformation” and repeatedly pressuring them to remove or suppress content. Federal agents and politicians admonished that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be amended, removing the legal protections the businesses had.
As Justice Samuel Alito noted, federal officials treated Facebook, Twitter ( now X ), and other social media companies “like their subordinates”.
In connection with this lawsuit, Bailey discovered documents that claimed Facebook had “often-true content” that might deter people from taking the COVID- 19 vaccines.
In that context, Jackson’s question about the First Amendment “hamstringing the government” seems particularly alarming. In times of existential crisis, such as a world war or a civil war, the federal government did not intervene. It took action after reliable data was made available that demonstrated COVID-19 poses a deadly threat to the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and while the government was campaigning for vaccines for all populations, not just the most vulnerable.
Jackson’s question suggests that, despite the abuses this case has exposed, she still wants the government to have more control over how people use social media.
If the First Amendment is good for anything, it should “hamstring” the government from silencing Americans in order to push its own propaganda. Jackson, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, should know that.
Then again, if she ca n’t define the word “woman”, perhaps Americans should n’t be surprised if she does n’t grasp the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email , [email protected] , and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular” We Hear You” feature. Include your name, town, and/or state along with the article’s url or headline.  ,
