Today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach. The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.
~ Rand Paul
Arguments are being heard in the most important free speech case in recent US history, the case of Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Biden v. Missouri. Justice Brown Jackson (KBJ) is the Justice who doesn’t know what a woman is.
In a country where no one is protecting citizens in any way, shape, or form, Justice Ketanje Jackson is concerned that the 1st Amendment is hamstringing the government.
“My biggest concern,” Justice Jackson said, “is that your review has the 1st amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do?
“I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe; don’t do it. It’s not gonna 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.
“So tell 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.”
The Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment, is meant to hamstring the government. This is the entire reason for the 1st Amendment.
JUST ANNOUNCED:
Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Jackson:
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
Wow. Justice Jackson was protecting the government’s censorship rather than the American People’s free… pic.twitter.com/1ieS6lXKWG
— AJ Huber (@Huberton) March 18, 2024
The attorney justified a social media and government partnership against the people. It’s a “once in a lifetime.” It’s only this once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
“The most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” The government wants to use the pandemic to take away our free speech.
Justice Alito said, “When I see the White House and Federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the Federal government should be partners… regular meetings, constant pestering… Wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to print media.”
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Happening NOW: Murthy v. Missouri—SCOTUS hears arguments on US govt collusion with social media platforms to censor online speech.
A US judge has called this case “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Alito: “When I see the White House and… pic.twitter.com/5lp6wtWb2j
— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) March 18, 2024
No Natural Rights Too
Justice Brown Jackson also has no position on natural rights. During her nomination hearing, she wouldn’t take a stand on something as basic as natural rights.
Now, at one point in written questions to her, Sen. Cruz posed this question: “Please explain in your own words the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or unalienable,” CNS News reports.
She seemed to understand this when she answered by saying the theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.’
“Then in the next question: “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?”
“It seemed to me what — to her understanding that she should easily have said – said, yes to that,’ Cruz said, “but she took a position she didn’t have a position. So, part of having judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles in our Constitution. Natural rights are part of that system.
“But as Judge Jackson said in a written response, she does not, quote, “hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
wpDiscuz
