Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


SCOTUS InJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson: First Amendment Getting In Way Of Government’s Unlawful Speech Censorship

Written by:

Published on: March 19, 2024

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -First Amendment, US Bill of Rights

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” -InJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson

It’s incredible, isn’t it?  The People ARE NOT RESTRAINED in the First Amendment.  Government is restrained!  What we are hearing coming out of the mouths of the injustices that sit on the supreme Court is nothing short of treasonous.  Remember InJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the woman who couldn’t define what a woman is and couldn’t tell when life begins?  Well, her comments are getting a bit of attention as she is all for government censorship despite what the law says.  In fact, like so many other political criminals, she readily acknowledges that the law is the hurdle that needs to be overcome in order to continue in lawlessness.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways,” InJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the First 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 First 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 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.”

Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following 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,” Aguiñaga said in response. “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.”

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.”

Others chimed in on Jackson’s comments.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media