You are always defending the flat out stupid, the ignorant, the racist and the evil every damn time.

Every.
Damn.
Time.

Her response is simply frightening. For now, I will deem her a moron but I reserve the right to assume she's evil based on how her track record progresses.

Quote:

---

"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.

"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," she continued.

"So can you help me? Because I'm really 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," Jackson added.

---

So, if the government deems we are in a "time period" that requires government oppression and coercion (Orwell says hi) then she is concerned the government won't have the ability to act in a tyrannical manner.

In other words, something like COVID...a time period we have since learned was largely abused with abject lying, oppression, and usurping of government scope.

Justice Alito: "The government is treating social media platforms like their subordinates."

You CANNOT outsource censorship and call it constitutional.

You CANNOT have the FBI harassing Facebook and not call it coercion.

You CANNOT suspend the Constitution because you say… pic.twitter.com/wiHD7svIRA

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 18, 2024

Quote:

---

So, if the government deems we are in a "time period" that requires government oppression and coercion (Orwell says hi) then she is concerned the government won't have the ability to act in a tyrannical manner.

In other words, something like COVID...a time period we have since learned was largely abused with abject lying, oppression, and usurping of government scope.

---

Need a compelling state interest, with no less restrictive means available and subjected to strict scrutiny standard. By phrasing that in a public safety area of 1st amendment law in that manner, she actually changed the issue.

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.

---

They show a clear lack of understanding regarding first amendment cases.

Quote:

---

"If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Justice Louis D. Brandeis in Whitney v. California (1927)

---

The federal government's campaign against speech that it disagrees with should be limited to countering such arguments with its own position rather than attempts to suppress other viewpoints. There are times when expediency might matter, but not in these cases.

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.

---

What you describe in #2 is precisely how Italian fascism functioned. Nobody forced the companies to do as thy were told, but they wouldn't survive long if they didn't do as they were encouraged to do. German fascism went a step further, and told them to comply or have their company taken over. Communism takes it the final step and just takes over the company outright.

Yes, that kind of intimidation from the government is a violation of free speech. Given your posting history, it isn't surprising that you would defend totalitarian and fascist tactics, but this is the most plain and open you've ever put it.

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, in this case the Democrats ****ed up. Do you want tech companies to tell the government, "Sorry, can't hear you! First amendment!" when Republicans are in charge and asking to take down tweets and posts like those in 2020 directing people where to riot? The line of questioning is not for this case. It's for every possible case moving forward and what standard the precedent will set.

Isn't one of the main principles taught in Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights was ratified to constrain/limit the federal govt.!

This SC judge must have missed that day of law school.

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

It actually is both. She is a DEI moron and she is a marxist that hates that the Constitution gives us freedoms and stops them from Frog marching us 24/7

EX TEXASEX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

It actually is both. She is a DEI moron and she is a marxist that hates that the Constitution gives us freedoms and stops them from Frog marching us 24/7

---

Slight correction: our rights come from the Creator. They are natural rights and are protected by the Constitution. Thus the limits on government. No government has the right to deny natural rights

I saw a "news" anchor lament that "White Christian Nationalists" (whatever that is) are prone to teach/preach that our rights come from God…not the government.

The one cool thing about Enlightenment philosophers and our Founding Fathers is they incorporated the idea of "Natural Rights" to include any atheists in the future.

And these rights shall not be infringed.

Our education system is breeding authoritarians.

This is what happens when the regime appoints an America-hating communist to a position whose one job is to interpret and protect the constitution.

It's very sad

Ag87H2O said:

---

Democrats should be embarrassed

---

why? This is what communists want. They are proud of this.

kb2001 said:

---

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.

---

What you describe in #2 is precisely how Italian fascism functioned. Nobody forced the companies to do as thy were told, but they wouldn't survive long if they didn't do as they were encouraged to do. German fascism went a step further, and told them to comply or have their company taken over. Communism takes it the final step and just takes over the company outright.

Yes, that kind of intimidation from the government is a violation of free speech. Given your posting history, it isn't surprising that you would defend totalitarian and fascist tactics, but this is the most plain and open you've ever put it.

---

Sometimes its worth it to read my post all the way to the end before concluding that I am defending fascism and totalitarianism.

Hah. Talk about totally missing the point. The founders were thinking about people like him when they wrote it.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

EX TEXASEX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

It actually is both. She is a DEI moron and she is a marxist that hates that the Constitution gives us freedoms and stops them from Frog marching us 24/7

---

Slight correction: our rights come from the Creator. They are natural rights and are protected by the Constitution. Thus the limits on government. No government has the right to deny natural rights

---

I agree, but that means those rights belong to each person, not just American citizens. Does The Constitution apply to non-citizens within our borders? Including tourists and illegal immigrants?

Logos Stick said:

---

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.

---

It's DEFINITELY a problem the government was trying to do this on the down low and trying to hide this activity from the public instead of being open on what it was doing for public scrutiny and evaluation.

Yes, everyone under the power of our government has constitutional rights. At least those not reserved to citizens. After all, it is out MMR general position that these are protective of natural rights that all persons should have. There are some reasonable limits of course but generally, we want all humans to have the basic rights we proclaim to be fundamental human rights.

It's not hard to extrapolate what this country will look like once people like these have total power. And they will eventually at this rate.

Buckle up, folks. It's going to get Night of the Long Knives-y

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, "dangerous information" like Hunter Biden's laptop, the Wuhan Lab Leak, and the true efficacy of the Covid vaccine.

As to the government's "bully pulpit," threats from the FBI is not a bully pulpit

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.

---

Yea, that is what the first amendment is supposed to do. Even I know that.

When the government wants to use the "bully pulpit," it calls a press conference.

When the government wants to engage in censorship, it sends an email or makes a phone call.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, in this case the Democrats ****ed up. Do you want tech companies to tell the government, "Sorry, can't hear you! First amendment!" when Republicans are in charge and asking to take down tweets and posts like those in 2020 directing people where to riot? The line of questioning is not for this case. It's for every possible case moving forward and what standard the precedent will set.

---

Ahhh.....so you are in favor of gutting 1A because something may happen sometime in the future?

Sorry, like malibu - your views are flat out garbage. There is nothing that says 1A has to be all cuddly and unicorn pixie dust, and your example of where to riot in 2020 is not a good example, because nobody was making cases that freedom of speech should be restricted when half the major cities in the country were burning because of whatever reason at the time was used to justify it, even to the point where stacks of bricks were left on street corners and people tweeted left and right telling everybody else where they were.

Freedom of speech is every bit as important as 2A and most of the other amendments. The whole "you can't yell fire in a theater!" excuse is not a good comparison - you absolutely can yell fire in a theater. And if nothing happens, what you did isn't illegal at all. The consequences of your actions may result in you having legal ramifications, but the simple act in of itself is not a violation at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, the government cannot stifle or restrict that. What can be done is criminal or civil punishment as a result of actions, if the resulting actions are in violation of the law.

The government has zero right to restrict free speech outside of some very, very, very, very specific areas that require a whole lot of scrutiny before being implemented. They cannot coerce, force, hint or otherwise suggest to any private company that they should comply with XYZ order or potentially see their company face off with the federal government or any other similar situation. That's what marxists, communists, the mafia and bananna republic countries do.

So, to answer your question - yes, I want companies to say "sorry, can't hear you! 1A!" regardless of who is in charge in any situation that the feds come in and suggest, coerce or attempt to force into silence.

BTW, the idea that if the R's are in charge and they ask facebook to take down posts that they don't like actually happening is laughable at best.

Quote:

---

Ahhh.....so you are in favor of gutting 1A because something may happen sometime in the future?

Sorry, like malibu - your views are flat out garbage.

So, to answer your question - yes, I want companies to say "sorry, can't hear you! 1A!" regardless of who is in charge in any situation that the feds come in and suggest, coerce or attempt to force into silence.

---

To correct the record for the second time in this thread, you and I have come to the same conclusion, and unless you didnt read my whole post theres not really any daylight one can have to conclude otherwise. A lesson for me to put my conclusions in the first sentence.

What my post intended to mean, is that I think the Justice is asking the right questions here, and that I dont get the dogpile. What if the government has a really really good reason to ask that everyone on this board thinks its a good idea to ask, is it ok then? Thats a fair question. One where the answer is still no, but its not out of bounds on this topic and case. The whole point of these questions is to cut to the heart of the issue.

Malibu said:

---

What my post intended to mean, is that I think the Justice is asking the right questions here, and that I dont get the dogpile.

---

Does this sound like "asking questions" to you?

Quote:

---

My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways

---

Wannabe tyrant deserves every bit of scorn she's getting. But hey, at least she is being honest about her intentions.

Without any context around that quote its right wing fodder. In the actual context of her back and forth with the LA solicitor general about the actual facts and future hypotheticals of the case, its a very relevant question.

https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-viral-narrative-distorts-ketanji-brown-jacksons-understanding-of-free-speech/

Quote:

---

Jackson may think it does. Her "hamstringing" comment came attached to a hypothetical scenario she posed to Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana's solicitor general, who argued the Biden administration had overstepped when it contacted social media platforms and attempted to pressure them to remove posts it found objectionable. Suppose a challenge circulated on social media concerning "teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations," Jackson said. Could the government try to persuade those platforms to remove that content?
No, Aguiñaga said, because that's still protected speech, no matter how dangerous.
That might very well be the correct interpretation. But Jackson's takethat such a view could place too much restraint on the governmentis one that's held by many, including, it appears, some of her more conservative colleagues. Kavanaugh, for example, invoked his experience working with government press staff, who regularly call reporters to criticize them and try to influence their coverage. Would it be illegal for the feds to prosecute those journalists for pieces that cast them in a negative light? Absolutely. Is it beyond the pale for the government to express what it believes to be true in seeking better coverage? Not necessarily, Kavanaugh said.

---

Malibu said:

---

Quote:

---

Ahhh.....so you are in favor of gutting 1A because something may happen sometime in the future?

Sorry, like malibu - your views are flat out garbage.

So, to answer your question - yes, I want companies to say "sorry, can't hear you! 1A!" regardless of who is in charge in any situation that the feds come in and suggest, coerce or attempt to force into silence.

---

To correct the record for the second time in this thread, you and I have come to the same conclusion, and unless you didnt read my whole post theres not really any daylight one can have to conclude otherwise. A lesson for me to put my conclusions in the first sentence.

What my post intended to mean, is that I think the Justice is asking the right questions here, and that I dont get the dogpile. What if the government has a really really good reason to ask that everyone on this board thinks its a good idea to ask, is it ok then? Thats a fair question. One where the answer is still no, but its not out of bounds on this topic and case. The whole point of these questions is to cut to the heart of the issue.

---

The general answer is that there is usually no good reason for the government to ask someone not to publish something, simply because the government disagrees with what is being published, or believes it not to be true. The remedy for the government in that situation is to publish its own statement, not suppress the speech of another.

Can anyone explain to me why we make office holders swear to uphold and defend the Constitution but never hold them accountable when they walk all over it or fail to do just that.