During oral arguments in a case about social media censorship, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced concerns that the First Amendment restricts government too much, especially during important times like the COVID pandemic.
She questioned if the government should be able to pressure platforms to remove "harmful information" and worried the First Amendment operates in a way that hamstrings government action.
Critics have noted that during Jackson's confirmation hearings, she was unable to define the term "woman" when questioned by Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
Definition of 'woman
When asked to provide a definition for the word "woman," Judge Jackson responded that she couldn't do so.
As a judge, Jackson claims her role is to address disputes, consider arguments, and apply the law to make decisions. Sen. Blackburn expressed dissatisfaction with Judge Jackson's response.
'My biggest concern'
In response to questions surrounding the First Amendment, Jackson said, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me?” she said.
'I’m really worried'
Jackson continued, “Because I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First 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.”
However, the Louisiana solicitor general responded that government can provide information to platforms but must comply with the First Amendment, and Rep. Jim Jordan criticized Jackson's view, noting the First Amendment is meant to restrain government overreach and censorship of political speech.
Compliance with the First 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. But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that,” Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said.
Jackson's comments
Jackson's comments suggested she believes government should have more power over online speech during certain circumstances. “She said you’ve got the First Amendment ‘hamstringing the government.’ Well, that’s what it’s supposed to do, for goodness sake. 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,” Jordan said.
'That is frightening'
“That is frightening because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading. Understand what took place here. This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech," Jordan added.
I'm frightened also that we have someone on the U.S. Supreme Court who feels so indifferent to our rights granted under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Especially considering this person doesn't know the difference between a man and a woman.
She's in over her head for sure.
She questioned if the government should be able to pressure platforms to remove "harmful information" and worried the First Amendment operates in a way that hamstrings government action.
Critics have noted that during Jackson's confirmation hearings, she was unable to define the term "woman" when questioned by Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
Definition of 'woman
When asked to provide a definition for the word "woman," Judge Jackson responded that she couldn't do so.
As a judge, Jackson claims her role is to address disputes, consider arguments, and apply the law to make decisions. Sen. Blackburn expressed dissatisfaction with Judge Jackson's response.
'My biggest concern'
In response to questions surrounding the First Amendment, Jackson said, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me?” she said.
'I’m really worried'
Jackson continued, “Because I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First 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.”
However, the Louisiana solicitor general responded that government can provide information to platforms but must comply with the First Amendment, and Rep. Jim Jordan criticized Jackson's view, noting the First Amendment is meant to restrain government overreach and censorship of political speech.
Compliance with the First 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. But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that,” Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said.
Jackson's comments
Jackson's comments suggested she believes government should have more power over online speech during certain circumstances. “She said you’ve got the First Amendment ‘hamstringing the government.’ Well, that’s what it’s supposed to do, for goodness sake. 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,” Jordan said.
'That is frightening'
“That is frightening because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading. Understand what took place here. This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech," Jordan added.
I'm frightened also that we have someone on the U.S. Supreme Court who feels so indifferent to our rights granted under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Especially considering this person doesn't know the difference between a man and a woman.
She's in over her head for sure.
