Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government.

[abby97]

Ya, that's kind'a the point.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government

During Supreme Court arguments challenging the Biden admin's alleged coordination with Big Tech, one justice's comments about the government’s relationship with the constitution raised eyebrows.

www.foxnews.com

 

[millah_22]

OP watches fox news.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I love you too Pepsi.

It’s Pepe.

 

[abby97]

OP watches fox news.

So what do you think about her comment? Do you agree that the first amendment hinders the government?

 

[Aardvark86]

Honestly, I was not troubled by it. She was asking the hard question about how to deal with situations where the G needs to speak, and be heard, clearly, as in national security situations or emergencies. That said, where her language was a bit loose, and people are getting bent out of shape, is the degree to which it directionally seemed to suggest that the remedy for this is not to, well, speak clearly, but rather to have private third parties censor other third parties' communications.

The funny thing about the truth is that when you adhere to it, people actually tend to listen to you.

 

[Fijimn]

So what do you think about her comment? Do you agree that the first amendment hinders the government?

Yes, of course. But it is not absolute. In fact, there are very broad exceptions that allows government censorship and there is (possibly was - depending on whether Alito's standard is now applied across all tests) a constitutional test to determine if it is a permissible infringement. That was the point of the Justice Jackson use of the Socratic method at yesterday's arguments.

 

[hexumhawk]

Nothing to worry about I'm sure.

 

[Bonerfarts]

Ya, that's kind'a the point.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government

During Supreme Court arguments challenging the Biden admin's alleged coordination with Big Tech, one justice's comments about the government’s relationship with the constitution raised eyebrows.

www.foxnews.com

My eyebrows are raised.... if you know what I mean.

 

[Finance85]

Honestly, I was not troubled by it. She was asking the hard question about how to deal with situations where the G needs to speak, and be heard, clearly, as in national security situations or emergencies. That said, where her language was a bit loose, and people are getting bent out of shape, is the degree to which it directionally seemed to suggest that the remedy for this is not to, well, speak clearly, but rather to have private third parties censor other third parties' communications.

The funny thing about the truth is that when you adhere to it, people actually tend to listen to you.

Governments all have their own speech platform. They can say whatever they want without restriction. If they think misinformation is being spread on social media, they are free to say so. When the FBI is sending e-mails 'asking' a social media outlet to censor speech and ban users over 'misinformation', that's no longer a 3rd party acting against another 3rd party. Most people are afraid of the US Government when they get involved, especially the FBI and IRS.

 

[Rifler]

The funny thing about the truth is that when you adhere to it, people actually tend to listen to you.

Another funny thing about the "truth" is that it's frequently incorrect,.. Relying on any single entity to correctly identify the truth 100% of the time is a fools game,.. Opposing views need to be shared, discussed and ultimately vetted by the herd...

 

[theiacowtipper]

Governments all have their own speech platform. They can say whatever they want without restriction. If they think misinformation is being spread on social media, they are free to say so. When the FBI is sending e-mails 'asking' a social media outlet to censor speech and ban users over 'misinformation', that's no longer a 3rd party acting against another 3rd party. Most people are afraid of the US Government when they get involved, especially the FBI and IRS.

Except, as was discussed during arguments, there were examples of the government asks being ignored by social media and there being no consequences to those companies. If there aren’t consequences is it really coercion?

 

[Aardvark86]

Another funny thing about the "truth" is that it's frequently incorrect,.. Relying on any single entity to correctly identify the truth 100% of the time is a fools game,.. Opposing views need to shared, discussed and ultimately vetted by the herd...

No doubt, which is a reason I frequent this board.

That said, instincts are right a shockingly high proportion of the time.