In shocking audio that emerged on Monday, March 18, President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court pick, Justice Kantanji Brown Jackson, was heard complaining that the First Amendment was “hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.” Her complaints came as part of a hearing over whether the Biden Administration could attempt to censor speech on social media during the pandemic.
As background, the case was brought by Louisiana and Missouri. The Missouri AG’s office, describing it, said, “Today, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the United States Supreme Court heard his challenge to the Biden administration’s vast censorship enterprise targeting conservative viewpoints. At stake is the court order blocking the White House, Surgeon General, FBI, DHS, and CDC from continuing to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.”
Further, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey said, “Today, the United States Supreme Court heard the most important First Amendment case in this nation’s history. I’m proud that Missouri is leading it. My office brought this lawsuit to halt the disgusting silencing of millions of Americans by the Biden Administration. We feel confident after today’s arguments, and look forward to reminding the nation that the First Amendment still means something in this country.”
In any case, Justice Jackson’s comments came when she addressed Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who was arguing against the federal government’s attempts to pressure social media platforms to censor speech during the Covid pandemic, claiming that it was justified in doing so for reasons of public health.
Earlier, Justice Jackson constructed a hypothetical situation in which social media platforms allowed a dangerous trend to circulate in which social media posts encouraged kids to jump out of windows “at increasing elevations.” After constructing that hypothetical, she asked whether it would be proper for the government to “encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem.”
Responding to her ridiculous hypothetical Aguiñaga said that it would be more appropriate for the government to use its “bully pulpit” to push back on the trend. He added that it would not be appropriate for the government to pressure platforms, much less coerce them, into taking down posts about the trend, however dangerous it was.
Justice Jackson then fired back against that, saying that the government using its bully pulpit was not enough and that there are circumstances in which public safety concerns make it appropriate for the government to “encourage or require this kind of censorship.”
It was in that context that Justice Jackson brought up the First Amendment “hamstringing” the government. She said, “So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would –what would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done. 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.”
Listen to her here:
"*" indicates required fields