In Shocking Move, Liberal Supreme Court Justice Attacks The First Amendment

[Fred Schilling, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

For over the past decade and a half, Democrats have been attacking the First Amendment for anyone they deem to be “spreading misinformation.” Under the presidency of Barack Obama, they argued in the Citizens United case that the government could ban books written about (Democratic) presidential candidates. 

Then, under Biden, they argued that they could create what was dubbed a Ministry of Truth, which would allow the federal government to censor on undesirable language online. 

Now, liberals on the Supreme Court have directly attacked the First Amendment, calling it a hindrance to the federal government and claiming that free speech “hamstrings” the government’s response to “national emergencies.” 

The case Murthy v. Missouri, challenged the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor messages it labels as dangerous speech, and the responses it got from the left should be shocking. 

The Washington Examiner asked: When can the federal government use its coercive regulatory powers to silence ideas it doesn’t like on social media? That was the question presented to the Supreme Court on Monday, and while a majority seems ready to protect the First Amendment, too many justices seemed ready to give the government the benefit of the doubt.”

The government’s record on COVID health policies deserves much skepticism. Four years ago this spring, school districts shut down for what was said would be “15 days to stop the spread.” This turned into months as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a directive calling for 6-foot distancing between people indoors. This was later found to have no scientific basis. Nor did the CDC’s guidance for how long people should be quarantined after being exposed to or testing positive for COVID. 

The key exchange came between Justice Samuel Alito and Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher when Alito asked Fletcher if print media outlets such as the New York Times or Associated Press would ever be subject to the threats, harassment, and “constant pestering” that the Biden administration applied to social media companies Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

Fletcher responded yes, “potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans during a once in a lifetime pandemic.” In other words, the Biden administration position is that the government may bully any media outlet into censoring ideas it doesn’t like as long as it regards doing so as an emergency necessity.

The case, writes Fox News “stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with 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.”

As the justices questioned whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, Kentaji Brown Jackson suggested that such actions can be justified, revealing that she does not believe in First Amendment protections. 

“My biggest concern is that 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. 

“And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” she continued.

“So can you help me? Because I’m really – 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,” Jackson added.

Anyone who understands the First Amendment knows that America’s free speech ideals revolve around protecting our voices from government censorship, not the other way around. 

The Examiner noted, “If the Biden administration wants to cajole people to get vaccinated, it is free to do so from the bully pulpit. What it is not allowed to do is use government power or threats to censor people who disagree with its COVID policies.”

Biden’s handpicked justice disagrees.

Kentaji Brown Jackson was appointed to replace Stephen Breyer, a move that was criticized because Biden announced that he was more interested in identity representation on the Supreme Court than qualifications. 

One of the three liberal justices, Brown Jackson has acted as a reliable vote for whatever Democratic policies dictate, often finding her voting against large majorities on decisions. 

Expect her to suddenly remember the purpose of the First Amendment if Donald Trump wins the presidency and acts against Democratic interests. 

[Read More: How One Tech Company Shapes Who Wins Elections]

You may also like

More in:Lifestyle

Comments are closed.