As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a landmark free speech case, one Democrat-appointed justice expressed concern that the First Amendment restricts government control of speech.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to side with the Biden administration that nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court when the court heard arguments for the landmark free speech case Murthy v. Missouri. She prioritized government censorship over cConstitutionally protected speech and whined that the First Amendment, as described by respondents’ representative Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, is “hamstringing the federal government.” For Jackson, it seems, the government’s agenda and potentially biased narratives are more important than the Bill of Rights.
Jackson addressed Aguinaga, who was arguing on behalf of the original complaint brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general. “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” the Supreme Court justice outrageously complained.
She added, “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.” In a separate part of the oral arguments, Justice Jackson suggested that the federal government should in fact “encourage or require this kind of censorship.”
But government coercion to censor speech, particularly on COVID-19 and other closely held leftist narratives, was not Jackson’s worry. “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 rambled.
Jackson’s comments drew critiques and backlash from free speech advocates, who argued that the First Amendment was indeed aimed at protecting free speech from government control.
“The very essence of the First Amendment is to ‘hamstring[] the government in significant ways’ in order to protect Americans' free speech liberties,” MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris wrote in an X post. “How did our nation get to the point where it has a SCOTUS justice that does not understand this obvious point?”
Murthy v. Missouri is a historic case challenging alleged government collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans. The complaint filed for the suit cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
