By John Wayne on Friday, 22 March 2024
Category: Race, Culture, Nation

Anti-Freedom Leftist Thoughts Go to the Top of the Legal Tree By Charles Taylor

At present the US Supreme Court has been hearing oral argument in the case, to be discussed in another blog post today, Murthy v. Missouri (2024), a lawsuit by Republican states alleging that 67 federal agencies and officials coerced social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X to censor individual posts, primarily related to Covid restrictions. One surprising thing to emerge came from the Supreme Court justice, Black Leftist woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said to one lawyer for the plaintiffs: "Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.

"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information."

Here is the Leftist mind at work, where there is no respect for the First Amendment freedoms, but sees the government as primarily all-powerful, supposedly acting in the common good. That apparently extends to the use of coercion of social media to produce the government's party line.

What is problematic here is that the government was wrong about Covid, in all respects, wrong about the lockdowns, and wrong to promote Operation Warp Speed, getting an experimental vax into the bodies, and genomes of the majority of the human race. Suppressing dissent meant that these evils occurred. That is the logical conclusion of the Black lady Leftist judges' position.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-raises-eyebrows-comment-first-amendment-hamstrings-government

"In a debate Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden administration's alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages, one justice raised eyebrows in her comments about the government's relationship with the First Amendment.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden's laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks — which the states argued was a First Amendment violation.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices debated whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, and whether its outreach efforts with private companies amounted to permissible persuasion or encouragement versus illegal coercion or threats of retaliation.

"It's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates," Justice Samuel Alito said. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a different approach.

"Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.

"The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country... by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," she said.

"Justice Jackson appears to be saying that she believes that the states' view would prevent the government from explaining its facts or positions to the social media companies when there is some danger or imminent threat," John Shu, a constitutional attorney who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital, noting that the "heart" of the case "revolves around where the differentiating line between persuasion and coercion exists."

"The First Amendment does not prevent government officials from complaining about a particular post or explaining why the post is factually incorrect. In fact, that's why X has the 'Community Notes' function," he said.

However, Shu noted that the First Amendment "prevents government officials from coercing, whether explicitly or implicitly, publishers to remove posts or articles because the government disagrees with or doesn't like that viewpoint, even if it is under the guise of 'national security' or 'public health.'"

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital in an interview that Justice Jackson was "absolutely right."

"It is hamstringing, and it's supposed to. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, and the government exists to protect our rights. But here, the federal government is ignoring our First Amendment protections and weaponizing the federal government to silence our voices," Bailey said.

"And she's right. It limits what the federal government can and can't do. And that's a good thing," he added.

The lawsuit from the states alleges 67 federal agencies and officials coerced platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X to censor individual posts, primarily related to COVID-19 restrictions imposed by the past two administrations, as well as the 2020 presidential election results.

Those cited include White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency.

In a July 4 court order last year, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty imposed the temporary injunction preventing White House and executive agency officials from meeting with tech companies about moderating content, arguing that such actions in the past were "likely" First Amendment violations.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the scope of the injunction, and said officials could not "coerce or significantly encourage" changes in online content.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that "a central dimension of presidential power is the use of the Office's bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest." That includes areas like public health, voting integrity and national security threats.

In Monday's oral arguments, conservative justices were most vocal against the federal government's actions, which Alito in October — when the appeal first arrived at the high court — said was "heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news."

Justice Clarence Thomas suggested how the federal government might subtly coordinate with tech firms. "You just work together, said: Look, we're right; they're wrong. Let's work together. You know, we're on the same team. Let's work together to make sure that this misinformation doesn't gain sort of any following."

But several of their conservative colleagues were concerned about hamstringing the federal government too severely. One hypothetical raised in court was how to respond to an epidemic sprouting online, in which young people were being encouraged as a dare or stunt to record themselves jumping from windows to the ground below, at ever-increasing heights."

In the case of the hypothetical where young people are encouraged to jump from windows, this should not be too hard to counter by showing the injuries that could result, rather than going over board and banning the social media posts. Counter it with reasoned argument; that's democracy. 

Leave Comments