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: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-5890E9.11501820032024@g9u1993c-hb.houston.hpicorp.net> <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>
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 <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>> 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.