Concerning how the First Amendment can prevent government censorship at critical junctures, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her worries. Jackson questioned whether the government could impose restrictions on social media postings during crucial times during Monday's oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri.
Speaking to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, Jackson expressed his concerns that the First Amendment would significantly hinder the government at crucial moments.
Jackson said, "It seems that you are saying that this obligation cannot be shown by the government pushing or even coercing platforms to remove offensive content. Can you thus assist me? You have the First Amendment working in a dangerous environment, in the eyes of the government, and you are claiming that the government is unable to deal with the root of those issues, which is why I am quite concerned about that.
According to Aguiñaga's perspective, the state ought to step in during certain circumstances, but it must adhere to the First Amendment in doing so.
The government may communicate with the platforms there, according to our perspective. Under such kinds of situations, which pose such serious risks to society and particularly to youth, they can and should," Aguiñaga said. "However, they must adhere to First Amendment guidelines in doing so. And it suggests, in my opinion, that they might ask to have all the accurate information the platform requires amplified after providing it."
According to Jackson, the government would have the right to restrict misleading social media messages in the event of a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergency.
"I find your argument regarding the First Amendment's principles remaining unchanged intriguing," she said. "When you talk 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, I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition," the speaker said.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who brought up Jackson's argument and called it "literally one of the craziest things I have ever seen," strongly chastised the congresswoman for her remarks. I could not understand how a justice of the Supreme Court could say that during the oral argument. It is scary," he continued. "Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
Speaking to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, Jackson expressed his concerns that the First Amendment would significantly hinder the government at crucial moments.
Jackson said, "It seems that you are saying that this obligation cannot be shown by the government pushing or even coercing platforms to remove offensive content. Can you thus assist me? You have the First Amendment working in a dangerous environment, in the eyes of the government, and you are claiming that the government is unable to deal with the root of those issues, which is why I am quite concerned about that.
According to Aguiñaga's perspective, the state ought to step in during certain circumstances, but it must adhere to the First Amendment in doing so.
The government may communicate with the platforms there, according to our perspective. Under such kinds of situations, which pose such serious risks to society and particularly to youth, they can and should," Aguiñaga said. "However, they must adhere to First Amendment guidelines in doing so. And it suggests, in my opinion, that they might ask to have all the accurate information the platform requires amplified after providing it."
According to Jackson, the government would have the right to restrict misleading social media messages in the event of a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergency.
"I find your argument regarding the First Amendment's principles remaining unchanged intriguing," she said. "When you talk 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, I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition," the speaker said.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who brought up Jackson's argument and called it "literally one of the craziest things I have ever seen," strongly chastised the congresswoman for her remarks. I could not understand how a justice of the Supreme Court could say that during the oral argument. It is scary," he continued. "Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
