WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?

The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.

It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.

Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.

It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist ass.

------------------- https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-aee7be8cb179.amp.html

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in "the
most important time periods".

"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time
periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

"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 said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st 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."

Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.

"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in
compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can give them
all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that."

Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would
provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.

"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st 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."

[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and the "officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of
carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]

Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court Justice
say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening.
Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)