Send an urgent message to Canadian legislators urging them to stop more online censorship laws
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — Comments made by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson during a hearing on Monday raised concerns among free speech advocates.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in Murthy v. Missouri, a case concerning collusion efforts between the Biden administration and Big Tech to censor speech about topics like the integrity of the 2020 election and the dangers of the COVID jabs.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time period,” Justice Jackson asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.
She said further:
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.
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.
“Interact” refers to Biden administration officials working closely with X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms to censor speech. In one example, a Biden administration official quickly got Instagram to delete a parody account of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The comments from Jackson drew criticism from conservatives and free speech advocates.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said the “hamstringing” nature of the First Amendment is what makes it valuable.
“It is hamstringing, and it’s supposed to. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, and the government exists to protect our rights,” Bailey told Fox News. “But here, the federal government is ignoring our First Amendment protections and weaponizing the federal government to silence our voices.”
“Free speech is the fundamental lifeblood of all advocacy and even advanced civilization itself. Justice Jackson’s ‘biggest concern’ here – that the government has a duty to take steps to censor speech it deems ‘harmful’ on social media platforms – is exceedingly improper,” Title IX for All, a civil liberties group, wrote on X.
“Yes. The first amendment does limit the government. That’s the point of it,” Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, wrote on X.
Charlie Kirk, president of Turning Point USA, pointed out Jackson could not define what a woman is during her Supreme Court hearing.
Jackson also earlier suggested that a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” could justify restrictions on free speech, essentially adopting the arguments of the Biden administration.
“I mean, 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.”
Many assertions regarding COVID-19 promoted by the Biden administration have since proven to be false, including claims that COVID shots and masks stop transmission of the virus and that COVID shots are not harmful and are beneficial for children.
READ: Study finds heart inflammation risk 133x greater for teenage boys after Pfizer’s COVID shot
Send an urgent message to Canadian legislators urging them to stop more online censorship laws