Doesn't understand the first amendment can you believe this moron is a SC justice.

Quote:

---

Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point'

---

Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point' | Fox News

DEI hire strikes again. She doesn't even have a clue what a woman is. We are living in an actual Idiocracy...only this one isn;t as quirky and playful as the Mike Judge version. This ons is actually pretty terrifying and looks horrible for our children and childrens' children.

Another 80 IQ black liberal female Marxist in power. One of many who are ruling over us now.

Imma call her Justice Camacho.

This isn't really anything new... Remember it was Obama who lamented that the Constitution was about "negative rights" because it limited the government. This is just the same ideology.

Phatbob said:

---

This isn't really anything new... Remember it was Obama who lamented that the Constitution was about "negative rights" because it limited the government. This is just the same ideology.

---

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.



Democrats should be embarrassed but they aren't smart enough to understand how dangerously stupid a take this is.

Ag87H2O said:

---

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.



Democrats should be embarrassed but they aren't smart enough to understand how dangerously stupid a take this is.

---

I don't think it is her being stupid. She is telling us all what progressives believe. They truly hate that the Constitution is one that was designed to limit gov't.

KBJ talks a lot because she isn't that bright.

John Armfield said:

---

Doesn't understand the first amendment can you believe this moron is a SC justice.

Quote:

---

Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point'

---

Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point' | Fox News

---

There are important points to be made here about the government asking tech companies to take things down, though. There are plenty of legitimate reasons the government may request content be removed, like it containing links to phishing websites or other scams, which are not protected by the first amendment. Or maybe they ask Twitter or Facebook or some other platform to take down posts organizing violent protests or flash mobs.

I'm also not convinced that social media accounts operated by foreign nationals or governments are protected under the first amendment either.

The question becomes, where is the line drawn, and does a line drawn in the wrong place become detrimental by hamstringing the government and preventing it from carrying out legitimate duties. Yes, the first amendment is meant to and should hinder the government, but the first amendment isn't absolute and shouldn't be applied absolutely.

What a joke.

We live in a time where a DEI hire can't define a woman but is a SC Justice. We have a Senator in Mazie Hirono who is the dumbest person to ever serve in the Senate. And we have Hank Johnson who openly asked if Guam would yip over because of too many people, AOC who thinks the world will burn up in less than 10 years, and we have a cackling DEI VP that is less popular than a dementia-addled idiot that has lived off the grift for his entire life.

Idiocracy was a comedy...this is not so funny

Really makes that 9-0 decision a couple weeks ago stick out. I get that there is sometimes some string pulling and varied opinions on the court. That's a good thing. Healthy and differing debate amongst the justices is a good thing.

That 9-0 verdict though was also a good thing. It sent a clear message.

But for her to then turn around and say something as unbelievably stupid, on a topic simple enough that it's understood by young school children, as this. It's clear she is not of sound or sharp mind, and her votes carry little to no original or personal thought. Someone on the court is literally having to tell her how to vote and which opinion to sign onto.

I encountered this mentality all too often in law school. A willingness to twist the plain meaning of words and intent of the founders in pretzels in an exercise of ends justifying the means. Some can pull it off convincingly, many cannot. While I want to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is bright enough to understand the meaning, intent and unsurpassed authority of 1A but is being disingenuous, I think she may actually just not get it.

what american institution isn't a complet and utter joke these days. as intended.

Ag87H2O said:

---

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods," she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.



Democrats should be embarrassed but they aren't smart enough to understand how dangerously stupid a take this is.

---

That's because the 1st amendment doesn't benefit them now that they are in power. Information threatens them. They were all about free speech in the 60s and 70s before they took control of every aspect of our society.

If Trump were "the government", she'd be all for the 1st amendment to hamstring him.

She's really stupid.

annie88 said:

---

She's really stupid.

---

WOW... the whole point of the amendments are for the protection of the individual - NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

She's beyond stupid. She's dangerous.

"Speak truth to power (unless Democrats are in power)."

This country is a laughing stock right now. I mean WTF has happened to us?

Look at some of these people being put in charge, our enemies are laughing.

Look at RICHARD Levine for crying out loud, I am shaking my head, Putin and Xi sh** themselves laughing so hard

Let me know if I am understanding this case correctly:

1. Facebook / X / TruthSocial whatever have users crowdsourcing dangerous information. Organizing a riot, encouraging users to bath in acid to ascend to the God realm, etc. etc. For sake of argument let's all assume that the 95% non-crazy population all agrees that it's not good. However, it's not illegal or against the TOS to post that kind of information.

2. Government asks, bully pulpit, but not from an edict, for the companies to do something about it.

3. Companies can either comply, tell government to pound sand.

Question is whether or not #2 is in violation of free speech, because the government, even if acting without edict, has coercive power and any company would rightly be intimidated into complying for practical, shareholder value is more important than a principled 1st amendment reasons. Can government use bully pulpit to try to get the population to 'voluntarily' comply?

Am I understanding the case correctly? If so, I don't think her questions are out of line, I think she's cutting to the heart of government power and doing a thoughtful job of considering the issue. Ultimately the answer is no, government shouldn't be able to get an inch of coercive power to regulate free speech.

Law schools are really churning out some all stars .

fixer said:

---

Law schools are really churning out some all stars .

---

Look at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law judiciary in Harris Co.

"She ain't helping the cause!"

Signed,

Clarence Thomas

So far, she shown complete ignorance of the 10th and 1st amendments. What's next?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Really makes that 9-0 decision a couple weeks ago stick out. I get that there is sometimes some string pulling and varied opinions on the court. That's a good thing. Healthy and differing debate amongst the justices is a good thing.

That 9-0 verdict though was also a good thing. It sent a clear message.

But for her to then turn around and say something as unbelievably stupid, on a topic simple enough that it's understood by young school children, as this. It's clear she is not of sound or sharp mind, and her votes carry little to no original or personal thought. Someone on the court is literally having to tell her how to vote and which opinion to sign onto.

---

The Dems more worried about swing states pulling Biden off the ballot if they allowed them to do so

Lol at this:

"3. Companies can either comply, tell government to pound sand."


Nice biz you got there. It be ashamed if some regulations were changed that affected it negatively.



This is cut and dry. It should be illegal for the government to discuss censorship and content guidelines with private companies! The government can counter the message and content. They can type. That's it! Period.

If Trump had been caught doing this, you libs would be cutting yourselves.

Malibu said:

---

Let me know if I am understanding this case correctly:

1. Facebook / X / TruthSocial whatever have users crowdsourcing dangerous information. Organizing a riot, encouraging users to bath in acid to ascend to the God realm, etc. etc. For sake of argument let's all assume that the 95% non-crazy population all agrees that it's not good. However, it's not illegal or against the TOS to post that kind of information.

2. Government asks, bully pulpit, but not from an edict, for the companies to do something about it.

3. Companies can either comply, tell government to pound sand.

Question is whether or not #2 is in violation of free speech, because the government, even if acting without edict, has coercive power and any company would rightly be intimidated into complying for practical, shareholder value is more important than a principled 1st amendment reasons. Can government use bully pulpit to try to get the population to 'voluntarily' comply?

Am I understanding the case correctly? If so, I don't think her questions are out of line, I think she's cutting to the heart of government power and doing a thoughtful job of considering the issue. Ultimately the answer is no, government shouldn't be able to get an inch of coercive power to regulate free speech.

---

One of the biggest issues is what constitutes "dangerous information", and who decides that definition?

Because the government decided that "dangerous information" was people questioning the friggin vaccine, or questioning why pharma was immune from all lawsuits in perpetuity, or quesitoning why decisions were made.

That's not dangerous information, that's information those in power simply didn't want spread and they absolutely used their power to get their way. Doesn't help that facebook and twitter (at that time) were hard core left in terms of political viewpoints and were absolutely giddy at the thought of stiffling free speech or censoring information that they just didn't like.

Her questions are absolutely out of line. She's dumber than a bag of hammers.

Quote:

---

Am I understanding the case correctly?

---

No.

Y'all can't get mad at a judicial horse taking a dump in the kitchen.

Honestly, I'm sure what she meant was that she was concerned the lawyer was interpreting the 1st amendment in a way that the government couldn't say you aren't allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. But what an absolute failure of a way to express herself.

Malibu said:

---

Let me know if I am understanding this case correctly:

1. Facebook / X / TruthSocial whatever have users crowdsourcing dangerous information. Organizing a riot, encouraging users to bath in acid to ascend to the God realm, etc. etc. For sake of argument let's all assume that the 95% non-crazy population all agrees that it's not good. However, it's not illegal or against the TOS to post that kind of information.

2. Government asks, bully pulpit, but not from an edict, for the companies to do something about it.

3. Companies can either comply, tell government to pound sand.

Question is whether or not #2 is in violation of free speech, because the government, even if acting without edict, has coercive power and any company would rightly be intimidated into complying for practical, shareholder value is more important than a principled 1st amendment reasons. Can government use bully pulpit to try to get the population to 'voluntarily' comply?

Am I understanding the case correctly? If so, I don't think her questions are out of line, I think she's cutting to the heart of government power and doing a thoughtful job of considering the issue. Ultimately the answer is no, government shouldn't be able to get an inch of coercive power to regulate free speech.

---

Now just imagine if the government and the company are ideologically aligned, and the company was willing to silence political opposition on behalf of the government to get around pesky Constitutional 1st Amendment issues. That's the real danger with the fascist American state the left is building today.