Entire point of the First Amendment (and Bill of Rights) is to curb government overreach.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson appeared to support government censorship during oral arguments on Monday, claiming her “biggest concern” is the First Amendment “hamstringing” the government.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the Biden Justice Department’s appeal of the Murthy v. Missouri case, where numerous states accused Democratic officials in the Biden administration of pressuring social media companies to unconstitutionally censor conservative viewpoints on topics like COVID-19 and election integrity.
The states argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency (CISA) are among those who coerced social media platforms to censor content.
At one point, Brown-Jackson claimed that certain situations may warrant government censorship.
“Whether or not the government can do this…depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence,” she said. “There may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise.”
Kentaji Brown Jackson grills LA solicitor general, says that because the govt can occasionally censor, they can also occasionally coerce:
KBJ: “Whether or not the government can do this… depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence.
There may be… pic.twitter.com/LmoL7bZDQY
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
She continued, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights. pic.twitter.com/gWMCaHDG1W
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
“You have to admit that there are certain circumstances in which the government can provide information and encourage the platforms to take it down,” she added.
Brown-Jackson doesn’t appear to grasp that the First Amendment’s entire point, along with the Bill of Rights, is to curb government overreach.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito noted as much during the session, warning that coordinating between the federal government and Big Tech companies could imperil free speech.
“When I see the White House and Federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the Federal government should be partners…regular meetings, constant pestering…Wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to print media.”
🚨 Happening NOW: Murthy v. Missouri—SCOTUS hears arguments on US govt collusion with social media platforms to censor online speech.
A US judge has called this case “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Alito: “When I see the White House and… pic.twitter.com/5lp6wtWb2j
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
“If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?” he asked, adding that Section 230 has given the government carte blanche to treat social media companies like “subordinates.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) excoriated Brown-Jackson over her anti-free speech comments.
“There was one line I still can’t believe Judge Jackson said this. She said to the solicitor general from Louisiana, she said, ‘You’ve got the First Aemdment hamstringing the government.’ Think about that. That’s the whole stinking purpose!” Jordan told political commentator Steven Crowder.
“Judge Jackson said ‘You’ve got the First Amendment hamstringing the government.’” – @Jim_Jordan pic.twitter.com/d8G40bIpJ3
— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) March 18, 2024
“The fact you have a person on the United States Supreme Court make that statement in the arguments on a case about censorship…at one point, I don’t even know what to say. How can you make that statement? It’s crazy,” he added.
Unfortunately, other conservative Justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to side with the Biden administration, claiming if restrictions are tight on the government’s ability to censor, it could open the door to potential harm caused by content about war, terrorist activity or dangerous hypothetical viral challenges that teens sometimes partake in.
I am listening to Amy Coney Barrett make the case that the government sometimes has good justification to coerce a social media platform to takedown protected speech
How did Trump manage to nominate a neocon to the court
This lady is beyond compromised pic.twitter.com/RKnD5USWOP
— George (@BehizyTweets) March 18, 2024
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) summed up the stakes of this historic case as one that could “redefine our free speech.”
“Today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach,” Paul wrote on X.
Today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach. The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing…
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 18, 2024
“The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.”
A decision in Murthy v. Missouri is expected by early summer.
Listen to the full oral arguments: