Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing
 Government Censorship
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:28:25 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:28:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="205be26fc4f373a82432ea1f9c8f83dd";
	logging-data="1649043"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZVE1kKblnHnzPMK/BVPEr"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fRdOe/vRbh98Fv0M1nqaQrgqpsg=
In-Reply-To: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6038

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.

> 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 First Amendment principles,” she said. “I understood our First 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...

-- 
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0