Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:05:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 155 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:05:13 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 7404 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7806 On 3/21/2024 11:05 AM, FPP wrote: > On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article , FPP >> wrote: >> >>> On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>> WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji? >>>> >>>> The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE. >>>> >>>> It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT. >>>> >>>> Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely >>>> what the >>>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because >>>> of the >>>> 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended. >>>> >>>> It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your >>>> Marxist ass. >>>> >>>> ------------------- >>>> https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment >>>> -is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b- >>>> aee7be8cb179.amp.html >>>> >>>> Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the >>>> 1st >>>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique >>>> times. >>>> >>>> In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared >>>> to be >>>> skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in >>>> "the >>>> most important time periods". >>>> >>>> "My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment >>>> hamstringing >>>> the government in significant ways in the most important time >>>> periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga. >>>> >>>> "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 1st 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 said his view was that the government should intervene in >>>> certain >>>> situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment. >>>> >>>> "Our position is not that the government can't 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 in response. "But the way they do that has to be in >>>> compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can >>>> give them >>>> all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify >>>> that." >>>> >>>> Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that >>>> are >>>> misinformative. >>>> >>>> "I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st >>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>> restrictions of >>>> speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>>> about a >>>> compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the >>>> public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime >>>> pandemic." >>>> >>>> [Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and >>>> the >>>> "officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of >>>> carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.] >>>> >>>> Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan >>>> (R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the >>>> craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court >>>> Justice >>>> say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. >>>> Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are >>>> heading." >>>> >>> The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>> harmful information doesn't get to the public. >> >> (1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >> only has powers granted to it by the citizens. >> >> (2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government >> censorship. >> >> The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >> freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >> you're saying is harmful". >> >> (3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >> there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled: >> >> "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >> disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency."  Ex >> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) >> >>>> "I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>> restrictions of >>>> speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>>> about a >>>> compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the >>>> public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime >>>> pandemic." >>> >>> Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see >>> where it gets you. >>> >>> Or try publishing National Defense secrets... >> >> No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of view >> loses: >> >> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) >> >> RULING: The New York Times' publishing of the national security >> information found in the Pentagon Papers is protected speech under the >> 1st Amendment, even during time of war. >> >> Once again reinforcing that there is no 'emergency exception' to the >> requirements and restrictions the Constitution places on the government. >> >> (This is one of those landmark cases that you should have learned about >> in grade school, Effa. Certainly something a self-proclaimed amateur >> historian should-- but apparently doesn't-- know.) >> > And the press is a protected institution.  You're not the press. A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible source of information and not a bullhorn.