As Twitchy just reported, law professor Jonathan Turley has called the Murthy v. Missouri lawsuit being argued before the Supreme Court Monday as possibly "one of the most important free speech cases in the history of the Court." This is basically about whether the government can censor speech on social media, as we saw how it did when the Twitter Files were released.
If there's one thing we learned from the pandemic, it was not to suppress dissenting opinions — say, on the COVID-19 virus having leaked from a lab, or the vaccine possibly having dangerous side effects. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson apparently learned nothing from that fiasco, looking ahead to the next pandemic:
...Justice Jackson just nudged Fletcher back from his concession that, if there was coercion, there might be a first amendment violation. Jackson suggested that some coercion might be allowed in "a once in a lifetime pandemic." That question is chilling for free speech advocates
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
We already had a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, so we shouldn't have to worry now, should we?
Justice Jackson, who is not a biologist, expressed some concern about the First Amendment "hamstringing" the government.
Justice Jackson repeatedly suggesting that a mere compelling interest is sufficient to justify government censorship
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) March 18, 2024
"My problem is your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in the most important times" -Justice Jackson
— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) March 18, 2024
I forgave the "I'm not a biologist" comment: it was a political statement, not a revelation of incompetence.
This one? Not so charitable, I'm afraid.
Here's audio:
KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights. pic.twitter.com/gWMCaHDG1W
Recommended
Exactly … to limit the power of the government over the people.
Yes, that's always been the purpose of the First Amendment. However Jackson's purpose is to undercut and hamstring the Constitution. So her viewpoint fits her reason for being on the court.
— Progressing California (@ProgressingCali) March 18, 2024
My jaw about fell on the floor when I heard her say that.
— Sudha Lakshmi (@sudha_lakshmi) March 18, 2024
So, in cases where it's really important, the government should be allowed to censor speech.
Guess the esteemed justice missed the class explaining that our constitution limits the government not the people. Dear heavens.
— Julie H Wright✝️⭐️⭐️⭐️🥋 (@juliew38138) March 18, 2024
That woman is just plain evil and she hates the Constitution and America.
— John Johnston III (@JohnTheKnife) March 18, 2024
Another diversity hire.
In my Constitutional law class, we learned that the Constitution limits the rights of the Government, not the people. I can also define the word woman. SCOTUS, we've got a problem.
— Savannah (@BasedSavannah) March 18, 2024
This is code for: "My biggest concern is that the First Amendment will serve the purpose it was intended to serve."
— Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons (@dbenner83) March 18, 2024
Legal scholar.
— Rich Dunsheath (@rdunsheath) March 18, 2024
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish what government cannot do— and the fact this judge doesn’t know that should disqualify her.
— Carlos (@LockNLos) March 18, 2024
She is a trainwreck and should not be on the bench.
— 🇺🇸 Mike (@mh_golfer) March 18, 2024
This should be immediately disqualifying of her position
— Bryan Bargowski (@GosuGains) March 18, 2024
This is like becoming an accountant and expressing concern about the danger of using numbers
Not sure of any context, but man…. unbelievable.
— Uncle Joe’s Basement (@JimMeyerchick) March 18, 2024
Except in the crazy, scary era we are experiencing.
She's new to all this "America" and "Constitution" stuff, let's give her a bit to get her bearings.
— DiscoMephisto (@DiscoMephisto) March 18, 2024
That's the whole point of the First Amendment, to constrain the government.
— Intrepid Agenda (@IntrepidAgenda) March 18, 2024
Not just in "significant ways," but entirely.
This woman should never have been allowed on the bench.
Heck… I’ll go further. The whole point of the entire Constitution is to “hamstring the government.”
— Brian Knotts (@brianknotts) March 18, 2024
Exactly.
Please hamstring the government. Liberty is about the individual.
— Veni! Vidi! Memi! (@venividimemi) March 18, 2024
Will someone think about the governments ability to censor?
— Chris McGowne (@cjmcgowne) March 18, 2024
Good God these people are astounding. Where did she get her law degree?
Just hold this phrase in your mind until you realize the horror of this statement. "Harmful Information"
— BrockManhammer (@BrockManhammer) March 18, 2024
Yes, Ketanji, The First Amendment hamstrings government...this is a concern to you, why again?
— Just Kevin Ryan (@kevinryanmedia) March 18, 2024
But what if it's about something really important, like the next once-in-a-lifetime pandemic? Shouldn't the government be able to quash "disinformation" to protect the people from themselves? Maybe she wants to bring the Disinformation Governance Board back while she's at it.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member