Justice Jackson Complains First Amendment Is ‘Hamstringing’ Feds’ Censorship Efforts

The Federalist ^ | MARCH 18, 2024 | JORDAN BOYD

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

Proverbs 14:34 (NLT) Godliness makes a nation great,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.

[OrioleFan]

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

She means like in the run up till an election. She should be impeached.

[kiryandil]

This is why attempts to mimic the US Constitution in third world countries always fail.

And that's why our country is failing.

[Political Junkie Too]

I wonder if it would be better had the first amendment been written like the second amendment:

The free exchange of ideas being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to publicly speak, publish, worship, associate, and petition the government for redress of grievances shall not be abridged.

-PJ

[mbrfl]

That’s funny. I would have put it the other way around. The Fed is hampering the First Amendment. But then again I’m not a lawyer so I’m not qualified to comment. Better leave it to the experts.

[blackdog]

AP publishes and updates it’s “Approved Word Usage Guide” every year.

[midwest_hiker]

What if there were burring cars on the bridge and someone's ability to tell others to jump off the bridge and into the river if you wanted to live was blocked.
Wouldn’t people then die.

See, if you make up stupid crap as a justification, there is always dummer crap to support it.

[cuz1961]

KG(j)B says what ?

ssdd.

[blackdog]

(Guide for writers,authors submitting to AP)

[9YearLurker]

The kind of Justice the Dems most want.

Makes our sniveling, compromised, RINO Justices look like giants.

Scary.

[NorthMountain]

Indeed.

The United States of Abortion will never be great.

The United Sodomites of America will never be great.

Government didn’t make America Great. We the People made America great.

God bless America???

Hah!

Repent, Americans! Be a nation that honors God, and that God can bless without violating His Nature.

[Fury]

Hugo Black is rolling over in his grave.

[mbrfl]

“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. “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.”

Let me see if I can clarify, Ms. Jackson. There’s political speech and then there’s speech made in the planning of or commission of a crime. “Biden is a disaster for America”, “Trump is a racist bigot”.... are examples of political speech. “When the motorcade passes by, I’ll give the signal. Then everyone, start blasting. “ is speech made in the planning of a crime. The former is protected. The latter isn’t. But then again, I’m not a lawyer so I’m not qualified to comment on such matters. Better leave it to the experts.

[Shady]

Almost like a ……. Wait for It ……. A BLOODBATH.

[ridesthemiles]

This is a misunderstanding—voiced by a person who “DOESN’T know what a woman is.”

[Erik Latranyi]

Given the left’s open attacks on the First and Second Amendments, it is clear that they are rushing towards implementing fascism.

The treatment of Jan 6 protesters, the surveillance without warrants, the detentions without charges and the lop-sided prosecution of political opponents makes it clear we are in the end days of the Republic.

[liberalh8ter]

One can only hope that her stunning ignorance will cause the others to see her remarks as the lighthouse atop the rocks of stupidity that they should always steer clear of.

[kawhill]

Someone should try to explain to her that it was the first the framers wrote down, the second was my right to keep and bear arms.

[liberalh8ter]

If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to have Hank Johnson on the SCOTUS, wonder no more.

[Labyrinthos]

“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.”

Just wow. She apparently doesn't understand Supreme Court precedent on speech restrictions based upon content. The long-standing standard of review is not "heightened scrutiny," which basically means that the law or policy furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Within the context of free speech, heightened scrutiny is used to review laws and regulations that restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, but are otherwise content neutral, i.e., the size and location of billboards/signage, parade permits, and places where people can protest. The standard of review for content-based restrictions on free speech is "strict scrutiny," which means that the law or policy must advance a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.

Using Jackson's example, let's assume the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that "the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.” The question, then, is whether the government can provide the public with what it contends is accurate information, without restricting opposing views. Clearly it can, because government does this all the time through public service announcements, press releases, billboards and other forms of advertising, public education, and other forms of brainwashing, without restricting opposing views

Jackson is clearly a DEI showpiece who has no business sitting on the highest court or any other court (except perhaps a local traffic court).